The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-107 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 03-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, FOR THE LINFIELD SCHOOL MASTER PLAN, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF PAUBA ROAD, SOUTH OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, EAST MARGARITA ROAD AND WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 955-002-002. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. Karen Raftery, Linfield Christian School, filed Planning Applications No. PA02- 0612 Zone Change and PA01-0653 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, located between Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road, west of Meadows parkway and east of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 955-002-002 ("Project"). B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on May 21, 2003 to consider the application for the Project. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-031 recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project. E. On August 26, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. On August 26, 2003, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 03-107, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. Section 2. findings: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-107 I evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law and copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Ca. 92589. C. The City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were discussed at a public hearing of the City Council held on August 26, 2003. D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA E. There is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment. F. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. G. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with law. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2003 AT~..,E~ST: ~....~(~?~1~ J °ne~' C M C J [SEAL] ~1~-~".~ef~r~-~. S,or{e, Mayor R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-107 2 STATE Of CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY Of RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 03-107 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 August, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone NOES: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Roberts ABSTAIN: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None City Clerk R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-107 3 EXHIBIT A INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-107 4 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Linfield Christian School Master Plan Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Project Location Name and Address General Plan Designation Description of Project Surrounding Land Uses and Setting required agencies whose approval Dan Long, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 31950 Pauba Road. Located between Pauba Road and Rancho Vista Road, east of Margarita Road and west of Meadows Parkway (Assessors Parcel No. 955-002-002) Linfield Christian School, 31950 Pauba Road, Temecula, CA 92592 Public Institutional (PI) Public Institutional (PI) PA02-0612 is a Planned Development Overlay (PDO-7) proposal to modify the land use standards to allow for a mix of uses on 93.77 acres including educational, recreational, institutional and residential facilities. PA01-0653 is a (Master) Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan application. The Master CUP application applies to the overall project and phasing. In addition, the Master CUP establishes design guidelines and provides a "blueprint" for future site layout. The overall proposal includes 120,374 square feet of new high school facilities, 11,243 square feet of new middle school facilities, 9,100 square feet of new elementary school facilities, 19,000 square feet of new kindergarten and pre-school facilities, one new junior varsity baseball field, one new middle school soccer field, one new football/track stadium, 6 new tennis courts, 3 new outdoor ball courts, 10,189 square feet of middle school lockers, courts and student store, 28,114 square foot gymnasium and pool, and 15,000 square feet of various sports and accessory structures. The project also includes a sensitive resource area proposed for preservation. The development plan proposal is for the design of phase A-1 as outlined in the Master CUP document. The Master CUP establishes the overall site into 3 planning areas. Area lA is broken down into various phases beginning with phase A-1 (High School) to phase F-2 (Superintendent/Caretaker housing). North: Low-Medium Density Residential (single-family residences) East: Very Low Density Residential (single-family residences & vacant lots) South: Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan/Low Medium Residential (single-family residences/Paloma Elementary School) West: Public Institutional (Temecula Valley High School) California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board R:~ D O~2002\02-0612 Linfield',inttial study-l.doc 1 Vicinity Map ect Site R:~P D O~2002\02-0612 Llnfield~nitial study-l-Revised.dcc Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics ricultural Resources Population and Housing Air Quality ical Resources, Water Cultural Resources ic Problems Hazards and Hazardous Materials ' and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT uired, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are ect, nothing further is required. April 24, 2003 Date Dan Long, Associate Planner City of Temecula For R:~P D O~002\02-0612 Linfield'dnitial study-l-Revised.doc 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially S~gnificant With Less Than Signiticant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact incorporated Impact Impact Ii Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: 1 .a. No Impact, The existing property has not been identified as a scenic vista in the City of Temecula's General Plan. 1 .b. No Impact. Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road are not designated as scenic resources nor is the site within the view of a state scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed project or future development of the site. 1 .c. No ImpacL The general character of the site will be maintained through site design and by maintaining an abundance of the existing landscaping and mature trees. Additional trees and landscaping have been proposed to maintain the rural character and blend with the existing site. The design of the site has been proposed which maintains the rural components of the site, including landscaping, on-site pond, open space and athletic fields. 1 .d. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will introduce new lighting in the area that could impact adjacent residences and Mount Palomar observatory unless mitigated. Conditions of approval have been implemented which require the athletic field lighting to have limited hours of operation (10:00 PM) and all security and parking lot lighting will be conditioned to comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. 2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? R:~ D O',2002\02-0612 Linfield~in ~Jal study-1-Revised.doc Comments: No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues and Supporling Information Sources Impact Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact X X X No X Comments: 3.a, No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with the air quality plan. The land use and proposed density are consistent with the City's general plan air quality element because the use is consistent with the general plan land use designation and the 26 residential units proposed are considered secondary to the primary use because the residential units are proposed only for students and/or faculty of the school. 3.b.c. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigations. The project will not create an unreasonable amount of vehicle trips per day than already existing for the site and will not produce additional air pollution than currently existing for the site because the site will continue to be primarily used as a school facility with secondary residential uses. The project is not identified as a major source of air pollution. Temporary impacts due to construction of the site may be expected, however the impacts are not considered significant and conditions of approval have been incorporated that will mitigate these temporary impacts. Less Than Significant Impact. As proposed the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrators. The proposed project will fall below the significance levels established by SCAQMD for construction and operational emissions. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e. No Impact. Typical construction odors may be present during construction activities, however these impacts are considered temporary and will not contribute significant long-term impacts. No other objectionable odors are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. R:~P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfield'Jnftial study-l-Revised.doc REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURE/CONDITION OF APPROVAL The project will be required to provide a water truck to continuously '~vater down" the graded areas to reduce the amount of dust from excavation. During grading activities, site shall be watered down no less than three times per day in order to comply with AQMD Rule 403~Fugitive Dust. In addition, all heavy equipment must be regularly maintained to reduce emissions. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppo~ng information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected i X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? i. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: .8. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site, however a current biological survey of the site (A General Biological Resources Survey and Jurisdictional Delineation on APN # 955-002-002, The Linfield School Project, L & L Environmental, Inc., August, 2001) has identified the project site as potentially environmentally sensitive habitat areas for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB), southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo. In addition a follow-up focused raptor survey was recommended. A follow-up study has been completed for the QBC (Focused Survey For The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly on APN # 955-002-002, The Linfield School, L & L Environmental, Inc., June 2002), however the results indicated that it is unlikely that QBC individuals or a QBC breeding population currently utilize the subject property. In a follow up letter from L & L Environmental, Inc., dated February 19, 2003, it was determined that further studies are not necessary for least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher since the area determined to provide habitat for these species lies R:\P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfiel~initial study-l-Revised.d~c within a resource area to be preserved. A follow-up focused raptor survey has been complete (Results of a focused raptor nesting survey for APN # 955-002-002, The Linfield Project, L & L Environmental, Inc., March 21, 2002) and has determined that while a single raptor nest was observed on the project it was determined to be abandoned or currently unoccupied. The report recommends a follow-up site visit is necessary to determine if the nest has become occupied. As a mitigation measure and condition of approval, the applicant, prior to issuance of a grading permit shall perform a follow-up site visit by a qualified biologist to determine if the nest has become occupied by a raptor. In addition, the riparian trees and riparian habitat and associated drainages are regulated under state and federal permits which are required for this project. The biological survey (August 2001) submitted for the project as mentioned above has identified on-site wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act and the necessary permits are required prior to commencement of various construction on the project site. The necessary studies have been completed for the project site, as well as focused follow-up studies and have determined that no significant impacts will occur as a result of the proposed development. Mitigation Measures have been applied. At the request of the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, the applicant has prepared a focused Survey for the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Focused survey for the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher on the Linfield Christian School, L & L Environmental, Inc., August 2003), and an ongoing focused survey for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Status of the Ongoing Focused survey report for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher on the Linfield Christian School, L & L Environmental, Inc., July 31,2003), which is anticipated for completion in October of 2003. The U.S. Department of Fish and Game authorized compressed scheduling for the U.S.F.W.S. protocol studies to include eight surveys, five days apart for Least Bell's Vireo. Also approved by the U.S.F.W.S. was an amended protocol survey for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, which included missing survey period one and conducting a fifth site visit July 17 - July 25. The focused survey for Least Bells Vireo and Southwestern Flycatcher were conducted within areas of suitable habitat during the months of June to July of 2003. During this time no Least Bell's Vireos or Southwestern Willow Flycatchers were observed or detected. The study concluded that neither of theses species do not currently occupy the project site. No further studies or mitigations have been proposed or recommended for these particular species. The particular area of concern in regard to the Coastal California Gnatcatcher is the southwestern portion of the project site, which includes Planning Area 2 of the Master Plan. This area is not proposed for development at this time, but is included in the Master Plan as a residential area for future development. The area in question will require a subsequent development plan application prior to any disturbance to this area. The applicant is in the process of completing the required Coastal California Gnatcatcher studies for this particular area. However, four of the required nine surveys have been complete. During the course of the four completed surveys, no Coastal California Gnatcatchers have been observed or detected on the project site. As a Condition of Approval and Mitigation Measure, the applicant will complete the nine surveys for the project site and submit a summary report with conclusions and recommended mitigation measures if necessary. Upon the request for development in the area, the Coastal California Gnatcatcher study will be complete and mitigations measures and Conditions of Approval will be implemented. Mitigation Measures have been applied. 4.b. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project site contains a mixed riparian habitat within the project site that falls within the state jurisdictional area. A significant amount of the mixed riparian area will be preserved as a result of the proposed project or it is in a currently developed area, but Will be maintained as an open space area. As a part of the proposed project, a resource area has been set aside for preservation on the project site. This area will remain undeveloped and is designated as a sensitive resource area. Mitigation Measures have been applied. 4.c. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project site contains wetland areas on the project site. There are a total of 2.85 acres of streambeds or wetlands per the definition of the State criteria for judicial streambeds and .57 acres that meet the federal criteria for Waters of the United R:\P D O~2002~2-0612 Linfield~initial study-l-Revised.doc States. Approximately 1.09 acres of state streambeds, 1.81 acres of state wetlands and .83 acres of federal wetlands will be impacted by the project as currently proposed. The remaining wetland and streambed acreage will be maintained as open space and will be identified as such on the master plan. Mitigation Measures have been applied. 4.d. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site includes riparian woodlands, streambeds and wetlands. The study (A General Biological Resources Survey and Jurisdictional Delineation on APN # 955-002-002, The Linfield School Project, L & L Environmental, Inc., August, 2001) identified three fish species of special status, however no habitat occurs on the site for any fish species. No special status mammals were noted during the biological survey. The project site does not contain a significant open grassland area, habitat for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, listed as Threatened, Endangered or a candidate for listing. The project site is, however, within the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan for this species. Seventeen bird species were observed on the project site, including several special status raptors. A follow-up study has been complete and found a single raptor nest was identified, however it was either abandoned or unoccupied at the time the study was performed. Additionally, the study area includes riparian habitat and drainages that are regulated under state and federal jurisdiction. State and Federal permits are required for this project. Two amphibian species (western toad and pacific tree frog) were observed on the project site. No reptiles were observed on the project site, however no species known to be Endangered, Threatened er on a candidate list are expected to be found on the site. Habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly is very poor. A focused study was complete and found that while the site does support Quino checkerspot larval host plant resources, no adult, ova, larvae or pupae were detected during the six week study and it is unlikely that Quino checkerspot butterfly individuals or a breeding population currently utilize the project site. Since no Endangered, Threatened or species on the candidate list were observed on the project site, the impacts are less than significant, however Mitigation Measures have been applied for areas under state and federal jurisdiction. 4.e.f. No Impact. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. This will serve as suitable impact mitigation. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The project is required to apply for and obtain the necessary state and federal permits, including a section 401 permit, 1603 straambed alteration agreement, and a Corps Nationwide 39 permit as recommended in the Biological resource survey by L & L Environmental Inc. (August, 2001, August 24, 2001, March 2002, and June 2002). 2. The project has established a resource area that will be preserved and will not be developed. The resource area shall remain in its current state unless development is proposed in the resource area, which will be subject to additional environmental review and a public hearing. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a follow-up site visit from a qualified biologist shall be conducted to determine if the raptor nest has been occupied. A report with recommendations shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 4. The proper habitat conservation and Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. All Coastal Sage Scrub habitat on the site including the patch in the southwest corner, between the riparian corridor and the road as well as the approximately .05 acres of hillside/top habitat in the northwest portion of the project site shall be avoided. In addition, a 150-foot buffer between the habitat areas and any proposed development shall also be avoided. In the event that the proponent submits a grading plan application for development or grading in either of the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat areas, the proponent shall also submit to the City and the U.S.F.W.S. a completed focused, full protocol study, either nesting or non-nesting season with negative finding and a conclusion by R:'~P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfiel~inJtJal study-l-Revised.doc 8 the U.S.F.W.S. permitted biologist that the species will not be negatively impacted by the proposed · development plan and/or grading plan. In the event that the site is found to be occupied and a survey with positive findings is produced, no work within the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or the 150- foot buffer area shall occur until a formal consultation with the U.S.F.W.S. has occurred and a permit for incidental take has been issued. Ill CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: LessThan Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact I~::orporated Impact Impact Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? /ii Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.57 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5.a. Less than Significant Impact With Mitigations Incorporated. The subject site does not meet the criteria of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. In addition the City of Temecula General Plan and associated EIR does not identify the site as a historical resource area. The General Plan has identified the project site as a highly sensitive site for paleontological resource area. An archaeological and paleontological survey (A Phase I Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report on the Linfield Christian School Expansion Site, APN # 955-002- 002, L & L Environmental, Inc., February 11, 2003) has been complete for the project site. The results of the records search indicated that there are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the subject parcel. The report did recognize that an important lithologic deposit underlies the ground surface area of the project site and has the potential for yielding scientifically significant specimens. Mitigations have been recommended including paleontological and archaeological monitoring during all earthmoving activities of the site. 5.b-d. Less Than Significant Impact. A phase I archaeological and paleontological study (A Phase I Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report on the Linfield Christian School Expansion Site, APN # 955-002-002, L & L Environmental, Inc., February 11,2003) was completed for the project site. According to the study, while there were no materials identified during the field survey, the study concluded there is a Iow probability that prehistoric or historic resources will be impacted by continued development of the project site. Additionally, neither the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report nor the City's General Plan identifies this project site as an area of significant cultural resources. The project will include conditions of approval to provide a paleontologist and an archaeologist or representative monitor present during all earthmoving phases with the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall comply with all the mitigations measures as recommended in the phase I archaeological and paleontological survey, prepared by L & L Environmental, Inc., dated February 11,2003. 2. The applicant shall provide an on-site archaeological and paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities as recommended in the Phase I archaeological report by L & L Environmental, Inc. (February 2003). R:\P D O~002\02-0612 Linfield~initial study-l-Revised,doc 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into an agreement with the Pechanga Band that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources and human resoumes and human remains discovered on-site. 4. Prior to the completion of the project a phase II, and if warranted a phase III survey shall be performed. 5. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. 6. All sacred sites within the project area are to be avoided and preserved. Ii' GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? LessThan PotentiallySignificant With Less Than SignificantMitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Irnpact · Expose people or structures to potential substantial X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Ii) Rupture of a known earthquake'fault, as delineated on X the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X ~ iii) Seismic-related ground fa ure, including liquefaction? X Biv) Landslides? X Bb. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? i i Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X ~ septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: 6.a. Less Than Significant Impact. . The project site is not within any known fault zones as recognized in the City of Temecula General Plan. The nearest known fault to the project site is the Wildomar Fault zone, and is located approximately 1-2 miles to the west. According to the General Plan EIR (GPEIR), the City of Temecula is in Ground shaking Zone II, which will experience moderate to intense ground shaking in the event of a major regional earthquake. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, which is consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, the project will be conditioned to provide a soils report prior to grading and recommendations contained in said report are followed during construction. No Impact. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfield~initiaf study-l-Revised.doc 6.c.d.e. No Impact. ,8. Potential impacts will be mitigated by the building construction, which requires new construction to comply with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development and shall contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of proper compaction of the soils and landscaping. Less Than Significant Impact. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are complied with during construction. The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. No Impact. Additional septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be connected to the existing public sewer system in Pauba Road; therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supportin~ Information Sources Impact Inco~orated Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or · d sposal of hazardous materials? lb. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous mater a s into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency I evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X ~njury or death involving wildland fires, including where ~ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where R:~P D O~2002\02-0612 LInfield~nitial study-l-Revised.doc Comments: 7.a Less Than Significant Impact. The project may include some remedial hazardous materials on the project site such as lead based paints, fertilizers, pesticides or other typical agricultural and/or maintenance materials on the project site. Since the site is predominately undisturbed, the impacts are less than significant, however a mitigation measure is added to comply with California environmental regulations. 7.b-h No ImpacL The project will not create a significant impact in the creation of any health hazard, potential health hazard, risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances and it is not located near, nor is it a site on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project site has not included historic or current uses that result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances that are considered potentially significant in causing harm. The project site is not known to maintain any potentially contaminated material that would pose a threat to human health or the environment. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. The project will not create a fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. While there are existing trees and brush on the site, the site is not considered a wild land area subject to significant risk of loss due to fire. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with all applicable laws. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Any hazardous wastes/materials encountered during construction shall be remediated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Prior to any initiating any construction activities, an environmental assessment shall be conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists on the project site. Proper investigation and remedial actions shall be conducted at the site prior to its new development. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact I~corporated Impact Impact Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for · which permits have been granted)? dl Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X R:\P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfield~initial study-l-Revised.doc i or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? le. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X R:\P D O~002\02-0612 Linfiel~initial study-l-Revised.doc i~g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? I i' Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, X which would impede or redirect flood flows? · Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 8.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements· The project is required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b.f· Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, however it would not result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Much of the proposed project will maintain its permeable surface, such as athletic fields and open space. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of structures, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances are required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. As conditioned, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the existing facilities. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the development of the subject site. In addition, the project is conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for a public institutional use within an area zoned for public institutional uses. Some residential uses are permitted uses and may be developed in the future, however the project site is not located within a flood plain or an area prone to flooding as identified on the FEMA maps. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100-year floodway as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Figure 7-3) and the Flood Insurance Rate Map Community-Panel Number 0607420005B and 0607420010B. No potential for exposure to 8.c.d. oeo R:~P D O%2002\02-0612 Linfield~initial study-1-Revised.doc significant flood hazards will occur from developing the project site as proposed. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The project site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudfiow, as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Incorporated Impact Impact ii Physically divide an established community? X Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? · Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Comments: 9.a. No Impact. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The property to the west is a public high school, which provides many of the same amenities as the proposed project. On the south and north side of the street are single-family residences. To the east of the project site are Iow-density residences with various vacant lots. The development of this site, as proposed, will be consistent with the intended use of the property and compatible with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not conflict with the General Plan designation, environmental plans or policies adopted be agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project includes a zone change to PDO-7, which allows for flexibility in the uses permitted. The primary use of the area will remain institutional, as a private school and administrative offices. The associated uses permitted within the PDO are secondary uses to the primary institutional uses and/or they are as allowed under the public institutional zoning and general plan designation. Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. A subsequent traffic study has been prepared by the applicant to address the potential impacts from the residential area proposed by the applicant. Implementation of PDO-7 and the development of Linfield Christian School do not appear to have the potential to conflict with any agency plans or policies that have been adopted in order to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved for the EIR, such as development impact fees, will be applied to this project where necessary. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on this project, and is anticipated the appropriate comments will be received as to how this project relates to their specific environmental plans and/or policies. Significant portions of the project site have been previously disturbed and used for educational and recreational purposes and services are currently in place for the proposed project. With the mitigation measures in place there will be less than significant impacts on adopted environmental plans or policies 9.c. No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The site is not within any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\P D O~002\02-0612 Linfield~n[tial study-l-Revised.doc 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant bo Issues and Supporting Information Sources Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local other land use plan? Comments: 10.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, it has been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in a report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal VaJley Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supportln~ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact l:: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? i : For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? iComments: 11,a Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures. The proposed project is located on an approximately 94-acre (Minus 23-acre land lease area) site directly adjacent to single-family residences and an existing public high school. The City of Temecula's General Plan has identified residents as sensitive receptors. A 65 CNEL has been adopted as the maximum exterior noise level R:\P D O~002\02-0612 Linfield~in[tial study-l-Revised.dcc 16 acceptable for sensitive'receptors. The CNEL is an average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. The proposed site and residences are separated by a 90 to 95 foot right-of-way, including a street, a 20 foot landscape slope on the residential side and a 20 foot setback on the PDO-7 side, grade elevations varying from 1-foot to greater than 35 feet and a combination of solid and wrought iron fencing. Noise levels as measured from an adjacent similar facility (Temecula Valley High School, 59.3 measured and 61.2 adjusted) do not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) as noted for the existing residential homes and as adopted in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The addition of a new ball field should not increase the noise dba above the maximum 65 dba allowed since sporting events are not expected to occur beyond 10:00 PM. Other athletic courts and fields are proposed, however they are no less than 180 feet from the right-of-way and are separated by slopes and riparian and woodland area to be maintained. The following mitigation measures will be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES 1. All outdoor events and public gatherings must cease from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. 11 .b. Less Than Significant Impact. The uses proposed by the project are not activities that would expose persons to, or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Although there will be an increase in ground-borne vibration and noise during grading and construction, these will be of a temporary and short in duration. Due to the limited nature of this exposure and by maintaining compliance with the City Noise Ordinance there will be a less than significant impacts. 11 .c.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction and thereafter. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, the project will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of construction activity from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 P.M. Monday through Friday and 7:00 A.M. to 3:60 P.M. on Saturdays. Construction will not be permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. A less than significant impact is anticipated at this time. 11 .e.f. No impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, student, teachers and other persons within the area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation S~gnificant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incoq3orated Im~3act Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension i of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 'Comments: 12.a.b.c. No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project site is the expansion of an existing educational facility surrounded by single-family residences R:~P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfiel~initial study-l-Revised.doc 17 and other public schools. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is developed within a public institutional zone. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources rmpact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associates with the provision of new or physically . altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: b. Fire protection? X c. Police protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X Comments: 13.a.b.c.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provide public facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.d. No Impact, The project will not have an impact upon, or will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. No impacts are anticipated. 13.f. Less Than Significant Impact, The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain '~/ill Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: issues and Supporting Information Sources Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the , would occur or be accelerated? R:\P D O~002\02-0612 Linfield~initial study-l-Revised,doc 18 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than S[gniticant tmpact No Impact X Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Comments: 14.a. No Impact. The project is an educational project with open space and athletic facilities. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is not anticipated, No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.b. No Impact. The project includes the potential to include a maximum of 26 residential units in addition to the two existing units which will be replaced and relocated on-site. All residential units are intended to provide housing for students and/or employees of the school. Since these residential units are secondary uses to the school and there is not a substantial number of residential units proposed, no impacts are anticipated for recreational facilities. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: LessThan Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? i . Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? · Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ii Result in inadequate emergency access? X Result in inadequate parking capacity? X Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: 15.a-c. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigations Incorporated. The project site is currently zoned Public Institutional, which is also the land use assumed in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the traffic-engineering firm Linscott Law & Greenspan, the proposed project will decrease the level of service (LOS) for AM/PM peak hour traffic from D to E. However, the required mitigation measures should improve the LOS to D once the mitigation measures are constructed. With mitigation measures in place, the project is consistent with General Plan goals and polices of maintaining a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections within the City during peak hours. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to the R:~P D O~2002\02-0612 Lin field~in~tia~ study-1-Revised,dcc existing traffic system within the City of Temecula. Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the cumulative impacts during the approval process and has determined that the project's traffic impacts warrant no further study or mitigations beyond those recommended by the traffic analysis. The following Mitigation Measures will be implemented: Mitigation Measures: 1. Restripe the southbound approach of Margarita Road to provide an additional southbound left turn lane (dual southbound left turn lanes) at the intersection of Pauba Road and Margarita Road. 2. Provide a traffic signal at the realigned intersection of Via Rami/Linfield Way @ Pauba Road. 3. Improve Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' RAN) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements 720' west of Linfield Way to the West Boundary, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 4. Improve Rancho Vista Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements along the North Boundary frontage, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 5. Improve Green Tree Road (Local Road Standards - 60' RAN) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvement from Margarita Road to the North Boundary, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street light, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 6. Future traffic studies may be required to determine the precise timing of each Mitigation Measure if the City determines it is necessary. 7. A school zone and striping plan, per Caltrans standards, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project a~nd included in the street improvements for this project. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met, shall be installed by developer. 8. Payment of the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). 15.d-g. No Impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district. The design of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the people utilizing the roads in the vicinity of the project because there are no sharp curves or dangerous intersections proposed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact, The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking requirements for public institutional uses. Many of the uses, such as athletic fields will only be used during off-peak hours and therefore shared parking will be utilized. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No Impact. The proposed project does not propose to provide public transportation or a public transportation turnout. Since the proposed project is a private school, it is not anticipated that a significant need for public transportation will occur. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Because the project does not propose to significantly increase its employee base, alternative transportation programs specifically designed for this project are not necessary. The project will be required to provide bicycle racks at a rate of 1 rack per 20 required parking space per the Development Code. 15.e. 15.f. 15.g. R:\P D O~002\02-0612 Linfield~initial study-l-Revised.doc 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supportin~ Information Sources Impact Incoq3orated Impact Impact la. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X ~, regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a.b.e. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. Less Than Significant Impact, The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The project will require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground storm drains and drainage swales in various location within the project site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities are required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has reviewed the proposed plan and has determined that the proposed project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.d. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District has provided '~Nater available" letters to the City indicating water resoumes are available to serve to proposed project, provided the applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regards to use and policies. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\P e 0~002\02-0612 Linfield\initial study-l-Revised.dcc 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Less Than Potentially SIghificant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supportin~ information Sources impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? i Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? Does the project have environmental effects, which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: 17.a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.. The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The site includes natural drainage courses and areas identified as riparian woodland. Environmental studies have been completed and have identified an area to be set aside a resource area. The developer is required to obtain various State and Federal Permits including, a Section 1602 permit from the Department of Fish and Game, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers and clearance from the Department of Fish and Wildlife for various biological concerns on the project site. A cultural resoumes monitor is required to be present on the project site during all earthmoving activities. A traffic analysis has complete and was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify traffic calming devices and mitigation measures to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan. 17.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The individual effects from the project are less than significant with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The project will not have a cumulative effect on the environment since the project site is an isolated area, surrounded by development. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. No Impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The institutional facility will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, PDO, and the General Plan. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17.c. 18. EARLIERANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. t Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. R:~P D O~002\02-0612 Linfield~nitial study-l-Revised.doc impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Comments: 18.a. There were no earlier analyses specifically related to this project site, The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report and a number of special studies (listed under Sources) were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study 18.b. There were no earlier impacts, which affected this project, 18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Initial Study. R:\P D 0~2002\02-0612 Linf[eld~nitial study-l-Revised.doc 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted July 2, 1993 Linfield Christian School Master Plan and Design Guidelines, dated February 21, 2003 Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulic Study of Linfield Christian School, Kenneth W. Crawford, Jr. dated December 12, 2001. Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Linfield Christian School Master Plan, Linscott Law & Greenspan, dated December 7, 2001 Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum, Linfield Christian School Master Plan, Linscott Law & Greenspan, dated February 5, 2003 A General Biological Resources Survey And Jurisdictional Delineation on APN #955-002-002, The Linfield School Project, L & L Environmental, Inc., dated August, 2001 Results of A Focused Raptor Nesting Survey For APN # 955-002-002, L & L Environmental, Inc., The Linfield School Project, dated March 21,2002. Focused Survey For The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly ON APN # 955-002-002, The Linfield School, L & L Environmental, Inc., dated June, 2002. A Phase I Archaeological And Paleontological Survey Report on The Linfield Christian School Expansion Site, APN # 955-002-002, L & L Environmental, Inc., dated February 11, 2003 Focused Survey Report for the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher on the Linfield Christian School, L & L Environmental, Inc., dated August 2003. Status of Ongoing Focused Survey Report for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher on the Linfield Christian School, L & L Environmental, Inc., July 31 2003. R:VP D O~2.002\02-0612 Linfield~initial study-l-Revised.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Project Description: Planning Application PA01-0653 Master CUP Planning Application PA02-0612 Planned Development Overlay Location: Applicant: South side of Rancho Vista Road, north of Pauba Road, east of Margarita Road and west of Meadows Parkway, 31959 Pauba Road, (APN: 955-002-002). Linfield Christian School 31950 Pauba Road Temecula, CA 92515 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Air Quality A temporary impact of offensive odors and additional dust due to the operation of heavy equipment during construction phases of the project. The project is required to provide a water truck to continuously '~Nater down" the graded areas to reduce the amount of dust from excavation. During grading activities, site shall be watered down no less than three times per day in order to comply with AQMD Rule 403-Fugitive Dust. In addition, all heavy equipment must be regularly maintained to reduce emissions. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure as part of on-going field verification and inspections. On-going during all grading activities Building Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources Development of land that potentially supports habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and California Gnatcatcher and raptors. The project will be required to acquire the necessary permits from federal and state agencies including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. R:\P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfield~Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 1 Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning and Public Works staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Planning Department and Public Works Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources Development of land containing riparian woodlands An environmental resource area has been set aside preservation and will not developed, for Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party As a part of the Master CUP, the plan designates the sensitive riparian woodland as a resource area not to be developed. Upon approval of the Master CUP and PDO Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources Development of land containing wetlands as identified by state and federal regulations The project will be required to acquire the necessary permits from federal and state agencies including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and' Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the building plan check and grading permit review process. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department and Public Works Department R:~ D O~2002\02-0612 LinfiekAMitigation Monitoring Program.doc 2 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources Development of land that potentially supports habitat for the Least Bell's Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and California Gnatcatcher. All Coastal Sage Scrub habitat on the site including the patch in the southwest corner, between the riparian corridor and the road as well as the approximately .05 acres of hillside/top habitat in the northwest portion of the project site shall be avoided. In addition, a 150-foot buffer between the habitat areas and any proposed development shall also be avoided. In the event that the proponent submits a grading plan application for development or grading in either of the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat areas, the proponent shall also submit to the City and the U.S.F.W.S. a completed focused, full protocol study, either nesting or non- nesting season with negative finding and a conclusion by the U.S.F.W.S. permitted biologist that the species will not be negatively impacted by the proposed development plan and/or grading plan. In the event that the site is found to be occupied and a survey with positive findings is produced, no work within the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or the 150-foot buffer area shall occur until a formal consultation with the U.S.F.W.S. has occurred and a permit for incidental take has been issued. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning and Public Works staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of a grading permit within the areas mentioned above. Prior to the issuance of grading permit for grading the habitat area. Planning Department and Public Works Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Hazardous Materials Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials Any hazardous wastes/materials encountered during construction shall be remediated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Prior to any initiating any construction activities, an environmental assessment shall be conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists on the project site. R:~ D O~002\02-0612 Linfield',Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 3 Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Proper investigation and remedial actions shall be conducted at the site prior to its new development. Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the building plan check and grading permit review process. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Noise Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. All outdoor events and public gatherings must be complete prior to 10:00 P.M. Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures via Code Enforcement. Ongoing Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Cultural Resources Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. A qualified archaeologist shall develop a mitigation plan and a. discovery clause/treatment plan, which includes mitigation monitoring to be implemented during all earthmoving phases of the project. The Planning Department and Building Department, in conjunction with the Luiseno Band will ensure monitors are provided during all earthmoving phases of the project. On-going during all earthmoving phases of the project Planning Department, Building Department, and Luiseno Band R:~ D 0',2002\02-0612 Linf[eld~Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 4 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Cultural Resources Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. A qualified archaeologist retained by the developer and approved by the City of Temecula shall review the approved project. The archaeologist shall conduct a pro-construction work recommendation plan and participate in a pre-construction meeting with the development staff and construction operators to ensure an understanding of the mitigation measures requires during construction. The Developer will retain a monitor(s) and conduct the required meetings with the Building Division and the Luiseno Band to ensure a plan is developed and an understanding is reached for monitoring. Prior to issuance of a grading permit Planning Department, Building Department, and Luiseno Band General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Cultural Resources Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. A final report must be prepared by the archaeologist for submission to the project proponent, the Eastern information Center and the City of Temecula. The report must describe the parcel history, summarize field and laboratory methods used, and include any testing or special analysis information conducted to support findings. The developer is responsible for acquiring an archaeologist to prepare a final report and submit the findings to the appropriate agencies. Prior to project completion Planning Department R:\P D O~002\02-0612 Lin field,Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 5 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Cultural Resources Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. A qualified vertebrate paleontologist ~'etained by the developer and approved by the City of Temecula will develop a storage agreement with the LACM Vertebrae Paleontology Section, San Bernardino County Museum, or another acceptable museum repository to allow for the permanent storage and maintenance of any fossil remains recovered in the project area as a result of the monitoring program, and for the archiving of associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data at the museum repository. The developer is responsible for retaining the required personnel and providing an agreement document to the City of Temecula for review. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Cultural Resources Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist and develop a mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan that when implemented during earthmoving activities will allow for the recovery and subsequent treatment of any fossil remains and associated specimen and site data uncovered by these activities. The developer is responsible for acquiring a paleontologist to prepare a mitigation plan and submit to the City of Temecula for review Prior to issuance of a grading permit Planning Department R:~P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfield',Mitigat~on Monitoring Program.doc 6 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Cultural Resources Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist and/or a paleontologist construction monitor (both are required if a separate monitor will be provided) will attend a pre-construction meeting to explain the monitoring program to grading contractor staff and to develop procedures and lines of communication to be implemented if fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving activities, particularly when or if a monitor may not be on-site. The developer is responsible for acquiring a paleontologist and/or paleontologist monitor and schedule a pre-construction meeting along with City of Temecula staff. Prior to issuance of a grading permit Planning Department and Building Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Cultural Resources Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Paleontologic monitoring of all earthmoving activities on a full-time basis. The supervising paleontologist shall have the authority to reduce monitoring once he/she determines the probability of encountering fossils has dropped below an acceptable level. A written letter must be provided to City of Temecula staff prior to the monitor reducing his/her monitoring duties. The developer is responsible for acquiring a qualified paleontologist monitor on-site at all times until it is determined unnecessary and approved by City of Temecula staff. Prior to issuance of a grading permit Planning Department and Building Department R:\P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfield',Mitigation Monitoring Program,doc 7 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Cultural Resources Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. A final report must be prepared by the paleontologist for submission to the project proponent, the County of Riverside, and the City of Temecula following accessioning of the Linfield Christian School fossil collection into the museum repository fossil collection. The report must describe the geology and stratigraphy pamel, summarize field and laboratory methods used, include faunal list, and an inventory of catalogued fossil specimens, evaluate the scientific importance of the specimens and discuss the relationship of any newly recorded fossil site in the parcel to relevant fossil sites previously recorded from the fossil-bearing rock unit in the parcel vicinity and from correlative rock units in other regions. The developer is responsible for acquiring a paleontologist to prepare a final report and submit the findings to the appropriate agencies. Prior to project completion Planning Department General Impact: intersections Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Transportation Increase in overall traffic volume and congestion at key Improve Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements from 720' east of Linfield Way to the West Boundary of the site, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit This work can be phased with phase 1 being completed with the relocation of the entry road. Phase 2 of the improvements would be the roadway in front of the elementary school and completed with Certificate of Occupancy of any new buildings east of Linfield Way, on Pauba Road or within 5 years, whichever occurs first. Phase 3 would include the remaining improvements adjacent to R:'~P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfield~Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 8 Responsible Monitoring Party Planning Area 2 (Future Faculty Housing) to the west boundary of the site and would be completed with the first building permit within Planning Area 2 or within 10 years, whichever occurs first. Public Works and Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Transportation Increase in overall traffic volume and congestion at key intersections Improve Rancho Vista Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements along the North Boundary frontage, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit These improvements may be deferred until a driveway connection is made to Ranch Vista Road or phase 3 of the improvements, whichever occurs first. Public Works and Planning Department Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Transportation Improve Green Tree Road (Local Road Standards - 60' RAN) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvement from Margarita Road to the North Boundary, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street light, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit These improvements may be deferred until a driveway connection is made to Rancho Vista Road or Phase 3 improvements, whichever occurs first. Public Works and Planning Department R:\P D O~002\02-0612 Linfield~Vlitigation Monitoring Program.doc 9 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Transportation Increase in overall traffic volume and congestion at key intersections A traffic study may be required to determine the precise timing of each Mitigation Measure if the City determines it is necessary. Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Public Works and Planning Department General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Transportation Increase in overall traffic volume and congestion at key intersections A school zone and striping plan, per Caltrans standards, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and included in the street improvements for this project. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met, shall be installed by developer. Payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit Prior to issuance of first building permit. Public Works and Planning Department R:~P D O~2002\02-0612 Linfield'u~4itigation Monitoring Program.doc 10