HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-13 2020 Harvestion Final SEIR (CURRENT) Final
HARVESTON GPA/SPA - PLANNING AREA 12
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974
Prepared for October 2020
City of Temecula
F ESA
J
Final
HARVESTON GPA/SPA - PLANNING AREA 12
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974
Prepared for October 2020
City of Temecula
2121 Alton Parkway ��
Suite 100
Irvine,CA 92606
949.753.7001
esassoc.com
Bend Orlando San Jose
Camarillo Pasadena Santa Monica
Delray Beach Petaluma Sarasota
Destin Portland Seattle
Irvine Sacramento Tampa
Los Angeles San Diego
Oakland San Francisco
D181343
OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY I ESA helps a variety of
public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and
emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions.ESA is a registered
assessor with the California Climate Action Registry,a Climate Leader,
and founding reporter for the Climate Registry.ESA is also a corporate
member of the U.S.Green Building Council and the Business Council on
Climate Change(BC3).Internally,ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision
and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our
operations.This document was produced using recycled paper.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Harveston GPA/SPA — Planning Area 12
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report
Paqe
Chapter 1, Introduction to Response to Comments.........................................................1-1
1.1 CEQA Requirements ...........................................................................................1-1
1.2 CEQA Process.....................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Evaluation and Response to Comments .............................................................1-2
1.4 Final SEIR Certification and Approval .................................................................1-3
1.5 Notice of Determination .......................................................................................1-3
Chapter 2, List of Commenters...........................................................................................2-1
Chapter 3, Responses to Comments..................................................................................3-1
Comment Letter 1: United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and
WildlifeService.....................................................................................................3-6
Comment Letter 2: State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research ............. 3-12
Comment Letter 3: Temecula Valley Unified School District..................................... 3-14
Comment Letter 4: Pechanga Cultural Resources .................................................... 3-16
Comment Letter 5: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District ............................................................................................................... 3-18
Comment Letter 6: Kenneth E. Nordstrom................................................................. 3-23
Comment Letter 7: Lawrence A. Nordstrom............................................................... 3-30
Chapter 4, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR....................................................4-1
Chapter 5, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...............................................5-1
List of Tables
2-1 Comment Letters Received........................................................................................2-1
5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Harveston General Plan
(GPA) and Specific Plan (SPA)— Planning Area 12 Project.....................................5-2
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 I ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 I I ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
CHAPTER 1
Introduction to Response to Comments
This Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report(Final SEIR)has been prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) as amended(Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.)and CEQA Guidelines(California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et
seq.).The Final SEIR incorporates,by reference,the Draft SEIR(State Clearinghouse No.
2019070974)prepared by the City of Temecula(City) for the proposed Harveston General Plan
Amendment(GPA) and Specific Plan Amendment(SPA)—Planning Area 12(Project), as it was
originally published and the following chapters,which include responses to the comments
received on Draft EIR and revisions made to the Draft SEIR.
1 .1 CEQA Requirements
Before the City may approve the Project, it must certify that the Final SEIR: a)has been completed in
compliance with CEQA; b)was presented to the City Council who reviewed and considered it prior to
approving the project; and c)reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15090)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 specifies that the Final SEIR shall consist of the following:
• The Draft SEIR or a revision of that draft;
• Comments and recommendations received on the Draft SEIR;
• A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR;
• The response of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process; and
• Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
This Final SEIR for the Project presents Chapter 1 through Chapter 5:
• Chapter 1: Introduction to response to comments and the CEQA process
• Chapter 2: A list of persons,organizations,and public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR
• Chapter 3: Written comment letters received on the Draft SEIR and written responses to each
comment identified in Chapter 2
• Chapter 4: Corrections and additions made to the Draft SEIR in response to comments
received or initiated by the Lead Agency
• Chapter 5: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
1.Introduction to Response to Comments
1 .2 CEQA Process
Public Participation Process
Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping
On July 24, 2019, in accordance with Sections 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines,the City
published a Notice of Preparation(NOP)of the Draft SEIR, and circulated it to the State
Clearinghouse,resources agencies, and interested parties. The NOP requested comments on the
scope of the Draft SEIR, and asked that those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect
of the Project describe that authority. The comment period extended from July 24,2019 through
August 22,2019. The NOP provided a general description and location of the Project and a
preliminary list of probable environmental effects.
On August 8,2019,in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.91,the City held a public scoping
meeting to obtain public comments and suggestions from interested parties on the scope of the
Draft SEIR. The public scoping meeting was held at the Harveston Lake House located at 29005
Lakehouse Road,Temecula, CA 92591. At the public scoping meeting, a brief presentation and
overview of the Project was provided. After the presentation, oral and written comments on the
scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft SEIR were accepted.
Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR
The Notice of Availability(NOA)of the Draft SEIR was posted on the project site and with the
County Clerk in Riverside on January 31,2020. The Draft SEIR was circulated to federal, state,
and local agencies and interested parties requesting a copy of the Draft SEIR. Copies of the Draft
SEIR were made available to the public at the following locations:
• City of Temecula,41000 Main Street,Temecula,CA 92590;
• Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library, 30600 Pauba Road,Temecula, CA 92592
• Temecula Grace Mellman Library,41000 County Center Drive,Temecula, CA 92591
• Temecula Chamber of Commerce,26790 Ynez Court, Suite A,Temecula, CA 92591, and
• City of Temecula Website: http://TemeculaCA.gov
The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from January 31, 2020 through March 16,2020.
The City established a 45-day review period, as required by Section 21091 of the Public
Resources Code.
1 .3 Evaluation and Response to Comments
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires the City of Temecula,as the Lead Agency,to evaluate
comments on environmental issues received from parties that have reviewed the Draft SEIR and to
1 CEQA Section 21083.9 requires that a lead agency call at least one scoping meeting for a project of statewide,
regional,or areawide significance.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 1-2 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
1.Introduction to Response to Comments
prepare a written response.The written responses to commenting public agencies shall be provided
at least ten(10)days prior to the certification of the Final SEIR(CEQA Guidelines §15088(b)).
1 .4 Final SEIR Certification and Approval
Prior to considering the Project for approval,the City, as the Lead Agency,will review and
consider the information presented in the Final SEIR and will certify that the Final SEIR:
(a) Has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
(b) Has been presented to the City Council as the decision-making body for the Lead Agency,
which reviewed and considered it prior to approving the project; and
(c) Reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis.
Once the Final SEIR is certified,the City Council may proceed to consider project approval
(CEQA Guidelines §15090). Prior to approving the Project,the City must make written findings
and adopt statements of overriding considerations for each unmitigated significant environmental
effect identified in the Final SEIR in accordance with Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
1 .5 Notice of Determination
Pursuant to Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines,the City will file a Notice of Determination
(NOD)with the Office of Planning and Research and Riverside County Clerk within five working
days of project approval.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 1-3 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
1.Introduction to Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 1-4 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
CHAPTER 2
List of Commenters
The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report(Draft SEIR)for the proposed Harveston
General Plan Amendment(GPA)and Specific Plan Amendment(SPA)—Planning Area 12
(Project)was circulated for public review for 45 days (January 31 through March 16, 2020) in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a). The City received
seven(7)comment letters during the public review period,which are listed in Table 2-1 and
included within Chapter 3. The letters have been marked with brackets that delineate comments
pertaining to environmental issues and the information and analysis contained in the Draft SEIR.
Responses to such comments are provided in Chapter 3.
TABLE 2-1
COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
Comment
No. Commenting Agency Date of Comment
1 United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service March 16,2020
2 State Clearinghouse,Office of Planning and Research March 17,2020
3 Temecula Valley Unified School District March 16,2020
4 Pechanga Cultural Resources March 9,2020
5 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District June 4,2018
6 Kenneth E.Nordstrom March 6,2020
7 Lawrence A.Nordstrom March 5,2020
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 2-1 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
2.List of Commenters
This page intentionally left blank
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 2-2 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
CHAPTER 3
Responses to Comments
A summary of the comments contained within the comment letters received during the public
review period for the Draft SEIR are included in this chapter. The City provided individual
responses to the bracketed comments in each letter. In some instances, in response to the
comment,the City has made additions or deletions to the text of the Draft SEIR; additions are
included as underlined text and deletions as stfieken text(see Chapter 4). The revisions do not
significantly alter the conclusions in the Draft SEIR. Therefore,the Draft SEIR is not required for
recirculation per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-1 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
Comment Letter 1
ENT OF ry United States Department of the Interior FISH&WS.
II.
PDLIFE
Q �41//i Fi SEWICE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office
a9 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 208 ems'
gRCH 3,"8 Palm Springs,California 92262
In Reply Refer to:
FWS-20BO 13 8-20CPA0122
March 16, 2020
Sent by Email
Mr. Scott Cooper, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, California 92590
Subject: DSEIR for the Harveston General Plan Amendment and the Harveston
Specific Plan Amendment- Planning Area 12, City of Temecula
Dear Mr. Cooper:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)has reviewed the Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report(DSEIR) for the proposed Harveston General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Amendment- Planning Area 12 (project); the Carlsbad Fish & Wildlife Office received the 1-A
Notice of Availability of the DSEIR on February 18, 2020. The City of Temecula(City)
prepared the DSEIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with information
about the potential effects on the local and regional environment associated with construction
and operation of the proposed Project.
The City is a Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
Permittee. As a Permittee,when taking a discretionary action the City must ensure that public and 1-B
private projects in its jurisdiction are designed and implemented in accordance with MSHCP policies
and procedures.
The project is located within the City of Temecula (City), Riverside County, California, east
of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Ynez Road, north of State Route 79, and south of Temecula
Center Drive. The proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment (GPA)that
would change the existing General Plan land use designation from Service Commercial to
Specific Plan Implementation, and a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)that would include a 1-C
residential overlay to the existing Harveston Specific Plan on an 87.54-acre portion of
Planning Area 12. The residential overlay designation would overlay the existing Service
Commercial land use that is designated on the project site within the existing Specific Plan.
The residential overlay would allow the future development of a maximum of 1,000
residential units. The project site would not include 11.9 acres of the future French Valley/I-
15 Interchange.
The DSEIR concluded the proposed project would have no significant unavoidable impacts
on the environment except for air quality; all other environmental effects were found to be 1-D
less than significant, or able to be mitigated to less than significant levels.
The project site was mass graded in 2002, and five water quality basins were constructed at
that time in the area of the currently proposed residential overlay. Since the mass grading in
2002, the current project site has developed the following land cover types: Grassland(81.44
acres),Urban/Developed(1.30 acres), Disturbed(Non-basin) (2.71 acres), and Water
Quality/Desilting Basins (2.09 acres, distributed among six separate basins, one of which is
located outside the proposed residential overlay). The Water Quality Basins (basins)possess 1-E
vegetation including turkey mullein(Croton setiger), scattered tamarisk trees/shrubs
(Tamarix ramosissima), and mulefat shrubs (Baccharis salicifolia) and/or Fremont
cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii). No biological surveys were performed on the site in
preparation for the DSEIR, with the limited exception of a general biological reconnaissance
visit on June 24, 2019, by biologist Jaclyn Catino-Davenport of the consulting firm ESA.
Compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973: Fairy Shrimp Species
DSEIR Table 3.2-3 contains a summary of the report's conclusion regarding the potential for
60 different special-status wildlife species to occur on the project site. The DSEIR concluded
that species of fairy shrimp listed as threatened or endangered by the Service pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended(Act), have no potential to occur on the project
site due to an absence of suitable habitat. This conclusion is found in the DSEIR in Table 3.2-
3. There is no analysis or discussion for the reasoning behind this conclusion in the text of the
DSEIR.
The five water quality basins on the project site occur on Ramona and Buren loams, and on
Ramona and Buren sandy loams,respectively, which are classified by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) as belonging to the NRCS's Hydrologic Soil Group C, "Soils 1-F
having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a
layer that impedes the downward movement of water, or soils of fine texture or moderately
fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission."Furthermore, the DSEIR
states that the basins are occupied by scattered hydrophytic (water-dependent) shrub and tree
species, including tamarisks, mulefat, and cottonwoods. Any depressional feature, whether
manmade or natural, which can hold surface water for a week or longer after a major rain
event should be surveyed to determine the presence/absence of federally listed species of
fairy shrimp.
Fairy shrimp species are known to colonize and recolonize ponded water features by dispersal
of their cysts via birds, vehicles, footwear, and wind. Fairy shrimp have been found in
manmade water features including detention basins, stock ponds and drainage ditches. We are
therefore concerned that the conclusion in the SDEIR is premature.
Accordingly, we recommend that the basins be assessed for ponding and the presence of fairy
shrimp habitat. If the basins pond for more than seven days, we recommend that the SFIER
include a requirement that fairy shrimp surveys be conducted prior to project development.
The survey guidelines are available online at https://www.fvvs.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-
Protocols-Guidelines/DocumentsNernalPoolBranchiopodSurveyGuidelines_20150531.pdf.
If any of the three listed fairy shrimp species known to be present in the region(Riverside 1-F
fairy shrimp [Streptocephalus woottoni], vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi], or
San Diego fairy shrimp [Branchinecta sandiegoensis])are found in the basins, or surveys are (cont.)
not conducted prior to adoption of the Final SEIR, then an appropriate mitigation strategy
should be included in the Final SEIR. We are available to discuss the surveys or potential
mitigation measures with the City or the project proponent.
Protection of Burrowing Owls
The DSEIR concluded that there is a high potential for burrowing owls to occur on the project
site based on the presence of suitable small mammal burrows throughout the project site,
including ground squirrel colonies. The City included Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the
DSEIR to protect any burrowing owls on the site. This mitigation measure requires future
project applicants inside the Planning Area 12 residential overlay to "conduct protocol
BUOW surveys in accordance with the protocols established by CDFW in the CDFW 2012
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation to confirm the presence/absence of BUOW within
the project site and the buffer area identified within the CDFW protocol."
The wording of the MM BIO-2 also includes a"pre-construction survey" 14 days before
beginning ground-disturbing activities, whereas the 2012 CDFW Burrowing Owl Mitigation
report establishes both the 14-day pre-construction survey and a 4-visit survey to be
performed during the burrowing owl breeding season (one between February 15 and April 15, 1-G
and three visits (at least three weeks apart)between April 15 and July 15, with at least one of
these occurring after June 15 (CDFW 2012). Burrowing owls can be difficult to detect.
Female owls rarely leave their burrow while incubating eggs or tending nestlings. However,
males can be seen delivering food to the burrow or maintaining watch just outside, thus
making them more detectable during peak breeding activities. CDFW's 2012 Burrowing Owl
Mitigation report puts it this way:
"Burrowing owls are more detectable during the breeding season with detection probabilities
being highest during the nestling stage (Conway et al 2008) ... Non-breeding season
(September I —January 31) surveys may provide information on burrowing owl occupancy,
but do not substitute for breeding season surveys because results are typically inconclusive.
Burrowing owls are more difficult to detect during the non-breeding season, and their
seasonal residency status is difficult to ascertain. Burrowing owls detected during non-
breeding season surveys may be year-round residents, young from the previous breeding
season, pre-breeding territorial adults, winter-only seasonal residents, dispersing juveniles,
migrants, transients, or new colonizers. In addition, the number of owls and their pattern of
distribution [on the project site] may differ between winter and breeding seasons."
The Service requests that the City clarify Mitigation Measure BIO-2 by adjusting the text of
the first sentence as follows (recommended additions are highlighted in blue):
"Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, each
project applicant shall conduct protocol BUOW surveys in accordance with the protocols
established by CDFW in the CDFW 212 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation to
confirm the presence/absence of BUOW within the project site and the buffer area identified
within the CDFW protocol; namely, a breeding season survey consisting of four visits (one 1-G
during the period February 15 —April 15; two visits, at least three weeks apart, between April (cont.)
15 and June 15; and a fourth visit after June 15, to be conducted at least three weeks after the
third survey visit), and a one-day pre-construction survey to take place no more than 14 days
before beginning ground-disturbing activities on the project site. If the burrowing owl is
present, protective measures...".
The inclusion of burrowing owl and fairy shrimp surveys along with any mitigation as
required in the MSHCP if either owls or covered fairy shrimp are detected on site will
complete MSHCP implementation for the project. We appreciate the opportunity to review 1-H
and comment on the Draft Subsequent EIR If you have any questions regarding our letter, or
to schedule a call to discuss this project, please contact James Thiede at
james_thiede@fws.gov or(760) 322-2070 at extension 419.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by
KARIN
CLEARY-ROSE
0700'020.03.1621:38:48
CLEARY-ROSE
Karin Cleary-Rose
Acting Assistant Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
cc:
Heather Pert, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Tricia Campbell, Regional Conservation Authority
Literature Cited:
[CDFW 2012]. California Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. 36 pages. Available online.
3.Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 1 : United States Department of the
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment 1-A
The comment states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)has reviewed the Draft
SEIR.
Response 1 -A
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 1-13
The comment states that the City is a Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan(MSHCP)Permittee. As a Permittee,when taking a discretionary action,the
City must ensure that public and private projects in its jurisdiction are designed and implemented
in accordance with MSHCP policies and procedures.
Response 1-B
As stated in Section 3.2, Biological Resources,page 3.1-1, although areas surrounding the
Harveston Specific Plan area are located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP,
development within the Harveston Specific Plan area,including the Project Site, is not covered by
the policies and regulations established within the MSHCP, in spite of also being within the
MSHCP area. The Harveston Specific Plan was approved in 2001 prior to the adoption of the
MSHCP in 2004, including approval of a development agreement and grading permit. The entire
Harveston Specific Plan area was mass graded in 2003 prior to the adoption of the MSHCP and
the grading resulted in the removal of all previous plant and wildlife habitat. The development
agreement requires developers within the Harveston Specific Plan area to comply with only the
policies,rules, and regulations that were existing at the time of approval, in accordance with
Government Code Section 65864. Therefore, development within the Harveston Specific Plan
Area is not required to comply with the MSHCP. Although development would not be required to
comply with the MSHCP, development would be required to comply with the federal and state
regulations protecting plants,wildlife and habitat.
Comment 1-C
The comment provides a brief summary of the location and description of the Project.
Response 1 -C
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-6 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
Comment 1-D
The comment states the Draft SEIR concluded the Project would have no significant unavoidable
impacts on the environment except for air quality.All other environmental effects were found to
be less than significant or able to be mitigated to less than significant levels.
Response 1-D
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 1-E
The comment describes the mass grading that took place on the Project Site in 2002. The
comment includes a description of the land cover types and the vegetation within the water
quality basins. The comment states that no biological surveys were performed on the Project Site
in preparation for the Draft SEIR with the limited exception of a general biological
reconnaissance visit on June 24,2019 by ESA staff.
Response 1-E
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 1-F
The comment states the Draft SEIR concluded that species of fairy shrimp were listed as
threatened or endangered by the Service pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, and have no potential to occur on the Project Site due to an absence of suitable habitat.
The commenter states there is no analysis or discussion for the reasoning behind this conclusion
in the text of the Draft SEIR.
The comment states than any depressonal feature,whether manmade or natural,which can hold
surface water for a week or longer after a major rain event should be surveyed to determine the
presence/absence of federally listed species of fairy shrimp. Fairy shrimp have been found in
manmade water features including detention basins, stock ponds, and drainage ditches. The
Service is concerned that the conclusion in the Draft SEIR is premature. The Service recommends
the basins be assessed for ponding and the presence of fairy shrimp habitat. If the basins pond for
more than seven days,the Service recommends the Draft SEIR include a requirement that fairy
shrimp surveys be conducted prior to project development. If any of the three listed fairy shrimp
species known to be present in the region(Riverside fairy shrimp,vernal pool fairy shrimps, or
San Diego fairy shrimp) are found in the basins,or surveys are not conducted prior to adoption of
the Final SEIR,then an appropriate mitigation strategy should be included in the Final SEIR.
Response 1-F
The comment is correct that the reasoning behind the conclusion that special-status fairy shrimp
species have no potential to occur on the Project Site as indicated in Table 3.2-3, Special-Status
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-7 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
Wildlife Species(Page 3.2-13)lacked details beyond the stated explanation that suitable habitat is
not present on the Project Site. The four special-status species are vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi), San Diego fairy shrimp(Branchinecta sandiegoensis),Riverside fairy
shrimp(Streptocephalus woottoni) and Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp(Linderiella santarosae),
all of which but the latter are listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. San Diego fairy
shrimp has not been recorded within Riverside County, as the species' recorded locations are
confined to the coastal zone of San Diego and Orange Counties. Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp
occurs in cool-water vernal pools formed on Southern Basalt flows and has only been recorded on
the Santa Rosa Plateau to the northwest of the Project Site.Riverside Fairy Shrimp is found in
deep vernal pools or stock ponds persisting 7 to 8 weeks and occurring within Murrieta stony clay
loams,Las Posas series,Wyman clay loam, and Willows soils,none of which occur at the Project
Site. The Project Site basins do not contain water longer than a few days. Those three species
have no potential to occur on the Project Site.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp is found in short-lived cool-water vernal pools occurring within Willow,
Traver and Domino soils,none of which are found on the Project Site. Short-lived vernal pools
supporting vernal pool fairy shrimp must persist for one week or longer. The drainage basins that
occur on the Project Site resulted from the mass grading of the Project Site more than a decade
ago. Basins created during grading activities must comply with the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health provisions to prevent mosquito development by designing structures
that hold standing water for 96 hours or less,which is not sufficient time for vernal pool fairy
shrimp to survive.
The Project Site basins occur within Ramona and Buren loams or Ramona and Buren sandy
loams soils,both of which are well drained soils with a depth to restrictive feature of more than
80 inches. The Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)assigns Hydrologic Soil Group
C for both Ramona and Buren loams or Ramona and Buren sandy loams. Hydrologic Soil Group
C are soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet,which is rarely achieved on the
Project Site. In contrast, soils of habitats where special-status fairy shrimp species occur are
assigned to the Hydrologic Soil Group D,which are soils having a very slow infiltration rate
when thoroughly wet and are either poorly drained such as Willows silty clay in which Riverside
fairy shrimp is found, or have a restrictive feature close to the surface,within 12 to 20 inches,
such as Murrieta stony clay loam in which Santa Rosa fairy shrimp is found.Neither of those soil
characteristics are found at the Project Site. In addition,both Willows silty clay and Murrieta
stony clay loam have very low to moderately low capacity to transmit water. In contrast,both
Ramona and Buren loams or Ramona and Buren sandy loams have moderately high capacity to
transmit water,which prevents standing water from accumulating
For the above reasons, special-status fairy shrimp species have no potential to occur on the
Project Site.
Comment 1-G
The comment states the Draft SEIR concluded that there is a high potential for burrowing owls to
occur on the Project Site based on the presence of suitable mammal burrows throughout the
Project Site, including ground squirrel colonies. The Service requests the City to clarify
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-8 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 by adjusting the text of the first sentence as provided below.A second
sentence was added to Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to provide clarification of the timings for the
breading season surveys.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, each project
applicant shall conduct protocol BUOW surveys in accordance with the protocols established by
CDFW in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation to confirm the
presence/absence of BUOW within the Project Site and the buffer area identified within the
CDFW protocol;namely,a breeding season survey consisting of four visits(one during the
period February 15—April 15; two visits, at least three weeks apart,between April 15 and June
15; and a fourth visit after June 15,to be conducted at least three weeks after the third visit), and a
one-day pre-construction survey to take place no more than 14 days before beginning ground-
disturbing activities on the Project Site. For the timings of the breeding season surveys,these may
be modified in collaboration with CDFW. If the burrowing owl is present,protection
measures..."
Response 1-G
To clarify the requirements of protocol BUOW surveys,the suggested modified mitigation
measure language has been incorporated into Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the Final SEIR.
Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, each project
applicant shall conduct protocol BUOW surveys in accordance with the protocols established by
CDFW in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation to confirm the
presence/absence of BUOW within the Project Site and the buffer area identified within the
CDFW protocol; namely!, a breeding season survey consisting of four visits(one dun
ing the
period February 15—April 15; two visits, at least three weeks apart,between April 15 and June
15; and a fourth visit after June 55.to be conducted at least three weeks after the third survey
visit),and a one-day pre-construction survey to take place no more than 14 days before be ig nning
ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site.For the timings of the breeding season survey
these may be modified in collaboration with CDFW. If the burrowing owl is present,protective
measures,including active or passive relocation, shall be developed in consultation with CDFW
to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other applicable CDFW Code
requirements and include,but are not limited to the following:
• Occupied BUOW shall not be disturbed during nesting season unless a qualified biologist
verifies through non-invasive methods that either 1)the birds have not begun egg-laying
or incubation or 2)that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently
and are capable of an independent survival flight.
• A burrowing owl relocation plan shall be prepared that recommends methods needed to
relocate the burrowing owls from the project site and provide measures that will be
implemented for the maintenance,monitoring, and reporting of the relocated burrowing
owls to increase chances of survivorship and better ensure compliance with CDFW
guidelines. This plan shall be implemented during the non-breeding season, and prior to
seasonal rains to promote the best outcome for conservation of the burrowing owl.
In addition to the above, each project applicant can choose to conduct additional BUOW surveys
in advance of the prescribed pre-construction survey(s)protocol established by CDFW in order
to assess the presence/absence of BUOW on the project site. Surveys conducted earlier than the
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-9 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
prescribed pre-construction surveys per CDFW guidelines,would allow each project applicant to
start early consultation with CDFW regarding BUOW relocation(assuming BUOW are present
within the project site)well in advance of project construction activities. However,early surveys
and consultation with CDFW does not eliminate the need to conduct a pre-construction
clearance survey in accordance with CDFW guidelines. The pre-construction clearance survey
shall be conducted within 14 days of ground disturbance to document the continued absence of
burrowing owl from the project site as well as the buffer areas. If construction is delayed or
suspended for more than 30 days after the clearance survey,the project site as well as the buffer
areas shall be resurveyed.
All protective measures,including relocation, shall be reviewed and approved by the CDFW prior
to the initiating any ground disturbing activities.
This revision to Mitigation Measure BI0-2 provides clarification of the protocol BUOW survey
requirements and does not significantly alter the conclusions in the Draft SEIR. Therefore,the
Draft SEIR is not required for recirculation per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Comment 1-H
The comment states the inclusion of burrowing owl and fairy shrimp surveys along with any
mitigation as required in the MSHCP if either owls or covered fairy shrimp are detected on site
will complete the MSHCP implementation for the Project.
Response 1 -H
As discussed under Response 1-13, although the Harveston Specific Plan Project Site and
surrounding areas are located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP boundary,
development within the Harveston Specific Plan area,including the Project Site, is not covered by
the policies and regulations established within the MSHCP because the operative development
agreement was approved prior to the adoption of the MSHCP. Fairy shrimp surveys are not
warranted for the reasons explained in Response 1-F and the burrowing owl mitigation measure
has been modified as recommended in Comment 1-G.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-10 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
Comment Letter 2
M�Srar q���oe Pu„��a
:...• • a� STATE OF CALIFORNIA °
p G � T
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
XL State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Gavin Newsom Kate Gordon
Governor Director
March 17,2020
Scott Cooper
Temecula,City of
41000 Main Street
Temecula,CA 92590
Subject:Harveston General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment-Planning Area 12
SCH#: 2019070974
Dear Scott Cooper:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named SBE to selected state agencies for review. The review
period closed on 3/16/2020,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter
acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,please visit: 2-A
https:Hceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019070974/3 for full details about your project.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Scott Morgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL 1-916-445-0613 state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov www.opr.ca.gov
3.Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 2: State Clearinghouse, Office of
Planning and Research
Comment 2-A
The comment states that no state agencies submitted comments by the review period closing date
of March 16, 2020. The comment acknowledges that the City has complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to CEQA.
Response 2-A
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-12 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
Comment Letter 3
TEMECULA VALLEY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Unified School District Barbara Brosch
Lee Darling
Julie Fambach
SUPERINTENDENT
Sandra Hinkson
Dr.Kristi Rutz-Robbins
Timothy Ritter
March 16, 2020
Scott Cooper, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Harveston General Plan Specific Plan Amendment Planning Area 12
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment which revises 3-A
Planning Area 12 to allow up to 1000 residential units in lieu of commercial development.
The District agrees with the EIR findings that the proposed units would either cause or contribute further to 3-B
the student population exceeding current capacity at Ysabel Barnett Elementary School, James L. Day
Middle School, and Chaparral High School.
The EIR notes that SB 50 does not allow the school district to object to development based on lack of
available school facilities, and that the school mitigation fee paid at the time building permits are pulled,
approximating 50% of the cost of school facilities, is deemed by law to be sufficient mitigation. SB 50 3-C
assumes that there are California state school bonds available to cover the additional 50% of costs. Since
these state bonds are not currently available,the District would like to encourage the project developers to
enter mitigation agreements with Temecula Valley Unified School District that more closely mitigate the
development impact.
If you should have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
iree
tDictor of Facilities De elapment
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Cc: Lori Ordway-Peck,Assistant Superintendent of Business Support Services
31350 Rancho Vista Road/Temecula,CA 92592/(951)676-2661
3.Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 3: Temecula Valley Unified School
District
Comment 3-A
The commenter thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the Project.
Response 3-A
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 3-13
The commenter states the District agrees with the EIR findings that the proposed units would
either cause or contribute further to the student population exceeding current capacity at Ysabel
Barnett Elementary School,James L. Day Middle School, and Chaparral High School.
Response 3-B
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because the
commenter supports the EIR findings.
Comment 3-C
The comment explains the EIR notes that SB 50 does not allow the school district to object to
development based on lack of available school facilities, and that the school mitigation fee paid at
the time building permits are pulled,approximating 50 percent of the cost of school facilities,is
deemed by law to be sufficient mitigation. SB 50 assumes that there are California state school
bonds available to cover the additional 50 percent of costs. Since these state bonds are not
currently available,the District would like to encourage the Project developers to enter mitigation
agreements with the TVUSD that more closely mitigate the development impact.
Response 3-C
As described on page 3.9-24 in Section 3.9,Public Services,pursuant to SB 50(Section 65995 of
the Government Code),payment of fees to the TVUSD is considered full mitigation for Project
impacts,including impacts related to 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. As such,with payment of fees to the TVUSD
from future development of the Project, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
The Project developers are not required to enter mitigation agreements with the TVUSD.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-14 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
Comment Letter 4
Chairperson:
Neal Ibanez
PECHANCIA CULTURAL RESOURCES Vice Chairperson:
Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Bridgett Barcello
Committee Members:
Post Office.Box 2183•Temecula,CA 92593 Andre Miranda
iel, r
Telephone(951)770-6300 •Fax(95 l)506-9491 Darlene
Gerber
wlIWISEvic
March 9, 2020 Richard B.Scearce,Bl
Robert Villalobos
Director:
VIA E-Mail and USPS Gary DuBois
Coordinator:
Mr. Scott Cooper Paul Macarro
Associate Planner Cultural Analyst:
City of Temecula Tuba Ebru Ozdil
Community Development Department Planning Specialist:.
41000 Main Street Molly E.Escobar
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
for the Harveston General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment —
Planning Area 12
Dear Mr. Cooper:
This comment letter is submitted by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (hereinafter,
"the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government, in response to
receipt of the January 2020 dated Draft Subsequent EIR for the above named project.
The Tribe is in agreement with the proposed mitigation measures for cultural resources as
presented in the revised document for this Project and request that they be incorporated into the
final SEIR and added as conditions of approval for the Project. Temecula is a culturally
significant area and the Tribe appreciates the opportunity to preserve and protect our sensitive 4-A
cultural resources and to monitor earthmoving activities in the area. The Tribe thanks the City
for the revision of the proposed mitigation measures which address the potential impacts to
cultural resources, and for the inclusion of the Tribe in those measures.
The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to continuing to work together with the City of
Temecula in protecting the invaluable Pechanga cultural resources found in the City. Please
contact me at 951-770-6313 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerel .
Cc
Tuba Ebru Ozdil
Cultural Analyst
cc: Pechanga Office of the General Counsel
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need
3.Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 4: Pechanga Cultural Resources
Comment 4-A
The comment states that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (the Tribe)is in agreement with
the proposed mitigation measures for cultural resources in the revised document. The Tribe
requests that the mitigation measures be incorporated into the Final SEIR and added as conditions
of approval for the Project. The comment states that Temecula is a culturally significant area and
the Tribe appreciates the opportunity to preserve and protect their sensitive cultural resources and
to monitor earthmoving activities in the area.
Response 4-A
The Project's mitigation measures,including the proposed mitigation measures for cultural
resources,have been incorporated into the Final SEIR in Chapter 5,Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-16 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
Comment Letter 5
JASON E. UHLEY 1, 1995 MARKET STREET
General Manager-Chief Engineer ' , RIVERSIDE,CA 92501
951.955,1200
FAX 951.788.9965
www.rcflood.org
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
June 4,2018
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula,CA 92590
Attention: Scott Cooper
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: PA 18-0661, PA 18-0660 and PA 18-0659
(Harveston 11)
The District does not usually review land divisions/land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters/flood
hazard reports for projects that are located within incorporated cities. Exceptions are made for cases with items of specific 5-A
interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities,other regional flood control and drainage facilities
which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system,and District Area Drainage Plan fees
(development mitigation fees).
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any way constitute or T
imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard,public health and safety or any I5-B
other such issue: 1
• This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Murrieta Creek Master Drainage Plan. The 5-C
District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities upon written request from the City. Facilities must
be constructed to District standards,and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance.
Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
• This project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Area Drainage Plan for
which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid for by cashier's check or money order 5-D
written out only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of building or grading permits, whichever
comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may need to obtain an applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit coverage
from the State Water Resources Control Board or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Clearance for 5-E
grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been
granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)mapped flood plain,then the City should require
the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and 15-F
should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR)prior to grading,recordation
or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision(LOMR)prior to occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project,the City should require the applicant to obtain a
Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt 5-G
from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local
California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Very truly yours,
�r MIKE WONG
Engineering Project Manager
c: Riverside County Planning Department
Attn: John Hildebrand
EO:mcv
P8\221296
3.Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 5: Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
Comment 5-A
The comment acknowledges the District typically does not review land divisions/land use cases
for projects located within incorporated cities. Exceptions are made for cases with items of
specific interest to the District.
Response 5-A
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 5-13
The comment states that the District has not reviewed the Project in detail and the following
comments do not constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the Project with respect
to flood hazard,public health and safety or any other issue.
Response 5-B
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 5-C
The comment states that the Project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in
diameter,or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension
of the adopted Murrieta Creek Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting
ownership of such facilities upon written request from the City.
Response 5-C
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the environmental evaluations provided in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 5-D
The comment states that the Project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta
Creek/Santa Gertrudis Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted. Fees
should be paid prior to issuance of building or grading permits,whichever comes first.
Response 5-D
All future development of the Project would be required to pay the applicable fees per the
requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-18 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
Comment 5-E
The comment states that the Project may need to obtain an applicable National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit coverage from the State Water Resources
Control Board or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Response 5-E
As stated in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations,page 5-14, of the Draft SEIR, all future
development of the Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES
General Construction Permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB) as applicable. Future development would be required to implement a stormwater
pollution prevention plan(SWPPP) during construction that includes best management practices
(BMPs)to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the Project Site.
Comment 5-F
The comment states that if the Project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)mapped flood plain,then the City should require the applicant to provide the
information required to meet FEMA requirements and to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision(CLOMR) and a Letter of Map Revision(LOMR).
Response 5-F
As stated in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations,page 5-15, of the Draft SEIR and according
to Figure PS-2 of the City of Temecula General Plan,the Project Site is not located within a 100
Year Flood Zone. Further,the Project Site does not contain any streams or rivers.
Comment 5-G
The comment states that if a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by the
Project,the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the
California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE).
Response 5-G
As stated in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations,page 5-15, of the Draft SEIR and according
to Figure PS-2 of the City of Temecula General Plan,the Project Site is not located within a 100
Year Flood Zone. Further,the Project Site does not contain any streams or rivers. As stated in
Section 3.2,Biological Resources, of the Draft SEIR,page 3.1-28,the Project Site contains
desilting/water quality basins that were constructed as part of the Harveston Specific Plan project.
The existing basins on the Project Site are excluded by rule from USACE jurisdiction under the
Clean Water Act,based on the 2015 Clean Water Rule currently in effect.These features are
excluded by rule as artificially-constructed settling basins created by excavation of dry land.
Recently installed and serviceable desilting/water quality basins are considered a water quality
best management practice. California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW) regulates
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-19 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
alterations to streams and lakes under California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et. seq.
Because the desilting/water quality basins do not occur in association with any stream or lake
features on site,the California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 is not applicable.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-20 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
Comment Letter 6
Kenneth E. Nordstrom
40180 North End Road
Murrieta, CA 92563
March 6, 2020
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
Attn: Scott Cooper, Associate Planner
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Harveston General Plan Amendment & Specific Plan Amendment— Planning Area 12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Heirloom Farms)
State Clearinghouse Number 2019070974
It is my understanding that the Draft SEIR is open for public review and comments until March 16t"2020.
As a nearby Murrieta resident that will be impacted by the proposed development, as well as the former 6-A
chair of the Murrieta Traffic Commission, I have reviewed the Subject Draft SEIR Document and I offer
the following comments:
1) The current zoning in this Specific Plan Area is SC, Service Commercial, and this zoning has
existed for over 20 years. This area is within a major 1-15 Freeway "corridor" with Audi and
Mercedes auto dealerships currently existing on a portion of this land. The Draft SEIR fails to 6-13
address the original planning logic that went into the city of Temecula designating this area as SC
Zoning rather than allowing Residential land use.
2) This area is not only within a major I-15 Freeway "corridor" but also the major French Valley
Parkway Freeway Interchange at Date Street, construction of which is pending. The Draft SEIR
does not adequately address the Significant Negative Impacts that these two traffic facilities will 6-C
have on residential homes in this area, and are extremely difficult to mitigate, and in fact this
document indicates "significance determination after mitigation".
3) Within the ES.3 Project Objectives listing there is no mention of an impact on the Quality of Life
for people that would be living in this proposed residential area as opposed to other residential
areas throughout the City of Temecula. To build a 1,000 unit housing development adjacent to 6-D
the almost always congested I-15 Freeway will subject residents of this development to
unacceptably high levels of auto and truck noise and emissions. In addition, this development is
in the area of the perpetually congested Ynez Road/Winchester intersection, and will aggravate
an already nearly intolerable situation near the Promenade Mall and the I-15 Freeway, which is
used regularly by residents of both Temecula and Murrieta. General planning estimates for new 6-E
residential developments use 10 auto trips per day per residence. Given that, an estimated
10,000 additional daily trips will occur in the impacted area, which currently has only one principal
entrance/exit off of Ynez. This is a traffic nightmare waiting to happen in an already impacted
area.
4) This Draft SEIR also fails to adequately address the negative impacts to the schools created by
overlaying the existing SC with a residential SPI (Specific Plan Implementation). Residential 6-F
housing, as opposed to the existing SC, can expected to have significant negative impacts for
each of the school levels, elementary, middle, and high school due to overcrowding at each. Also,
the Draft SEIR does not address the very important issue of Safe Route to School. The "route to
schools" from this site would require young children to travel a long distance to get to the Ysabel
Barnett Elementary School along with crossing not one but two major streets, Ynez Road and 6-G
Date Street. Because of the proximity of the development to the affected schools, significant
traffic increases can be expected due to parents driving their children to school rather than
allowing them to walk in this congested corridor. This negative impact does not exist with the
zoning of SC, but with the Proposed Residential Overlay (SPI) it becomes both a major safety
issue for children, as well as a traffic issue, and represents again, a negative Quality of Life issue 6-G
for Tememula. (cont.)
The comments from this review have been sent to your e-mail at scott.cooper(a-)_TemeculaCA.gov and
also a hard copy by US Mail.
Feel free to contact me at 951 641-8344 if you have any questions and/or wish to discuss any of these
Draft SEIR issues.
Respectfully,
Kenneth E. Nordstrom
3.Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 6: Kenneth E. Nordstrom
Comment 6-A
The comment states an understanding of the dates for the public review period. The commenter
states that he is a nearby Murrieta resident and will be impacted by the proposed development.
The commenter states that he has reviewed the Draft SEIR.
Response 6-A
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 6-B
The comment states that the Draft SEIR does not address the original planning logic that went
into the City designating the Project Site as service commercial zoning rather than allowing
residential land use.
Response 6-B
As discussed in Chapter 2,Project Description,page 2-4,of the Draft SEIR,the Harveston Specific
Plan was initially approved by the City of Temecula City Council in 2001. The Specific Plan was
divided into 12 planning areas in an effort to create a distinct cluster of future uses/activities and
to identify potential time frames for individual project development to occur in a timely manner
within the overall Specific Plan concept.As provided in Section 2.7 on page 2-8 of the Draft SEIR,
the Project objectives include the development of residential development. The Draft SEIR is not
required to address the City's original decision to designate the Project Site as service commercial
versus residential. This Draft SEIR has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of the Project which would include a general plan amendment(GPA)that would change
the existing General Plan land use designation from Service Commercial (SC)to Specific Plan
Implementation(SPI) and a specific plan amendment that would include a residential overlay to
the Specific Plan on an 87.54-acre portion of Planning Area 12.No further response is required
because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 6-C
The comment states the project area is not only within a major 1-15 freeway"corridor"but also a
major freeway interchange at Date Street yet to be constructed.The comment states the Draft SEIR
does not adequately address the significant negative impacts that both facilities would have on
residential homes in the area,which are extremely difficult to mitigate. The comment states the
document indicates"significant determination after mitigation".
Response 6-C
The Draft SEIR evaluated the potential effects of the 1-15 freeway and future freeway
interchange at Date Street. Improvements to the I-15 freeway as well as the development of the
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-23 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
interchange are included within the list of cumulative projects in Table 3.0-1 on page 3-6 of the
Draft SEIR as the 1-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Phase II and III. The primary
environmental effects of the freeway improvements and the interchange include air emissions
and noise levels.
Section 3.1,Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR includes a health risk assessment to determine the
potential effects of future traffic volumes along the 1-15 freeway on the proposed residential
uses. As discussed on page 3.1-44 of the Draft SEIR, exposure to diesel PM from projected
2035 traffic volumes along the I-15 would result in a maximum cancer risk of approximately 144
in one million and a chronic health risk would be up to approximately 0.12 based on distance of
the proposed residential uses from the freeway. The cancer risk from the freeway of 144 is less
than the SCAQMD's cumulative background risk of the project vicinity of 463 in one million.
The projected chronic health risk is less than the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
significance threshold of 1.0.
Section 3.7,Noise, of the Draft SEIR includes a noise evaluation of the traffic noise impacts on
the future proposed residences from 2035 traffic volumes along the I-15 freeway. As discussed
on pages 3.7-33 and 3.7-34, the 2035 traffic noise level is projected to be 85 dBA CNEL at a
distance of 140 feet from the freeway centerline. As discussed,the 65 dBA CNEL noise level,
which is City's exterior noise standard, would extend throughout the Project site. An exterior
noise level of 65 dBA CNEL is required for standard building attenuation to achieve the City's
45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. As provided in Mitigation Measures N-3 through N-5,
exterior noise attenuation features are required to be incorporated into each individual project
on the Project site so that exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL for outdoor living areas such
as backyards associated with residential uses are achieved. These exterior noise attenuation
features could include sound walls and/or berms. In addition, as provided in Mitigation
Measures N-8 through N-10, interior noise attenuation features are required to be incorporated
into each individual project on the Project site so that interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL
within residences are achieved. These interior noise attenuation features could include
upgraded windows and building construction. The implementation of these mitigation measures
would reduce potential noise impacts from the I-15 freeway and the Date Street(French Valley
Parkway) interchange to less than significant.
Comment 6-D
The comment states within the Project objectives,there is no mention of an impact on the quality
of life for people that would be living in the proposed residential area as opposed to other
residential areas throughout the City of Temecula. The Project will subject residents to
unacceptably high levels of auto and truck noise and emissions from the I-15 Freeway.
Response 6-D
The Project objectives were provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b).
The Project objectives is a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project. The
objectives provided were not required to provide statements regarding quality of life impacts.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-24 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
Please see Response 6-C above regarding the evaluation of the air quality and noise effects from
future traffic volumes along the I-15 freeway and at the Date Street(French Valley Parkway)
interchange.
Comment 6-E
The comment states the Project is located in the area of the Ynez Road/Winchester intersection
which is congested. The comment states the Project will aggravate the area of the Promenade
Mall and the I-15 Freeway. The comment states the Project will generate an estimated 10,000
additional daily trips in an area with only one entrance/exit off of Ynez Road.
Response 6-E
Current regional access to the Project Site is provided via I-15 from the Winchester Road
interchange while future regional access will be provided by the future development of the French
Valley Parkway interchange which would connect to Date Street. Local access to the Project Site
is currently provided via Ynez Road and Date Street.Access to the future development within the
Project Site would be provided by Ynez Road,Temecula Center Drive,Date Street, and Equity
Drive. Future driveways to the Project are assumed to be provided along Date Street and Ynez
Road.
Section 3.11,Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, analyzes the potential traffic impacts associated
with project implementation. The traffic analysis included 16 project study intersections and 9
project study road segments. One of the project study intersections includes Ynez
Road/Winchester Road(intersection#8). Under all project study scenarios(Existing 2019
Conditions Without Project and With Project, Cumulative Year 2024 Conditions Without Project
and With Project, and General Plan Buildout 2035 Conditions Without Project and With Project),
the Project would not result in a significant impact at the Ynez Road/Winchester Road
intersection based on the applicable significance thresholds. The evaluation identified that the
Project would result in a significant impact at the intersection of Ynez Road and Waverly Lane
(intersection#2)under all project study scenarios. However,the traffic study concluded with
implementation of Mitigation T-1 that includes the installation of a traffic signal with left and
right turns permitted, the Project would result in a less than significant impact at the Ynez Road
and Waverly Lane intersection.
In addition,Table 3.11-7, on page 3.11-17, summarizes the forecasted trip generation of the
Project,which includes up to 1,000 small lot detached single-family homes categorized as Single-
Family Detached Housing.As shown in Table 12-1 of the Traffic Impact Analysis(Appendix I),
the service commercial use was forecasted to result in 22,760 daily trips, including 1,138 AM
peak hour trips and 2,048 PM peak hour trips. In comparison,the proposed residential overlay for
up to 1,000 single-family residential units is forecasted to result in 8,648 daily trips, including
656 AM peak hour trips and 928 PM peak hour trips. Therefore,the proposed change in use from
service commercial to residential overlay would result in a substantial decrease of project-
generated trips as a result of less intensive uses.Amending the use from service commercial to
residential would result in approximately 14,112 less daily trips, including 482 less AM peak
hour trips and 1,120 less PM peak hour trips in the Project vicinity.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-25 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
Comment 6-F
The comment states the Draft SEIR fails to adequately address the negative impacts to the
schools created by overlaying the existing service commercial with a residential specific plan
implementation. Residential housing can be expected to have significant negative impacts for all
school levels due to overcrowding.
Response 6-F
Section 3.9,Public Services, of the Draft SEIR, addresses whether potential impacts to the
Temecula Valley Unified School District(TVUSD)would require the need for new or physically
altered facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives. As described on page
3.9-23, implementation of the Project would include up to 1,000 single-family residences
resulting in a population increase of 3,340 persons. Based on the student generation factors
provided by the TVUSD,by Project buildout year of 2024,the Project would generate
approximately 409 elementary school students,204 middle school students, and 231 high school
students for a total of 844 school-aged children. The Ysabel Barnett Elementary School,the
James L. Day Middle Schools, and the Chaparral High School would not have the capacity for the
estimated students generated by the Project.
As described on page 3.9-24,pursuant to SB 50 (Section 65995 of the Government Code),
payment of fees to the TVUSD is considered full mitigation for Project impacts,including
impacts related to 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. As of 2019,TVUSD's developer fees for residential development is
$3.79 per square foot of single family and multi-family residential units(TVUSD Fee Website,
2019).As such,with payment of fees to the TVUSD from future development of the Project, a
less than significant school impact would occur.
Comment 6-G
The comment states the Draft SEIR does not address the issue of safe route to school. The route
to schools from this site would require young children to travel a long distance to get to the
Ysabel Barnett Elementary School along with the crossing two major streets,Ynez Road and
Date Street. Due to the proximity of the development to the affected schools, significant traffic
increases can be expected due to parents driving their children to school rather than allowing
them to walk. This impact would not exist with the zoning of service commercial,but with the
proposed residential overlay it becomes both a major safety issue for children, as well as a traffic
issue, and represents a negative quality of life issue.
Response 6-G
The Project Site is located within the attendance areas of Ysabel Barnett Elementary School
(grades K-5),James L. Day Middle School(grades 6-8), and Chaparral High School(graded 9-
12).Ysabel Barnett Elementary School at 39925 Harveston Drive,Temecula, CA 92591,is
located approximately 1.2 miles east of the Project Site. James L. Day Middle School at 40775
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-26 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
Camino Campos Verdes, Temecula, CA 92591,is located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of
the Project Site. The Chaparral High School at 27215 Nicolas Road,Temecula, CA 92591,is
located approximately 2.5 east of the Project Site.
As there are no specific detailed project plans or proposed project designs, internal circulation is
not known at this time. The Project will include sidewalks within the Project Site in accordance
with City standards. Sidewalks currently exist on both the west and east sides of Ynez Road and
the north and south sides of Date Street. Crosswalks currently exist at the Ynez Road and Date
Street intersection. The safe route to schools from the Project Site is along the sidewalk on the
east side of Ynez Road to the crosswalk at the intersection of Ynez Road and Date Street and then
continuing west along the sidewalk on the north side of Date Street. The existing sidewalks on
Date Street extend to the schools. Therefore,the existing school routes from the Project Site
would provide adequate safe route to school for school-aged children.
Table 3.11-7, on page 3.11-17, of the Section 3.11,Transportation, summarizes the forecasted trip
generation of the Project,which includes up to 1,000 small lot detached single-family homes
categorized as Single-Family Detached Housing. The forecasted project trip generation is 8,648.
The ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 10'Edition,2016,generation rate takes into consideration
vehicular trips to schools.As described above in Response 6.E,the traffic study concluded with
implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1,the Project would not result in significant traffic
impacts. Mitigation Measure T-1 requires that prior to the first building permit,the developer
shall install a traffic signal with left and right turns permitted at the Ynez Road and Waverly Lane
intersection.
As shown in Table 12-1 of the Traffic Impact Analysis(Appendix 1),the service commercial use
was forecasted to result in 22,760 daily trips, including 1,138 AM peak hour trips and 2,048 PM
peak hour trips. In comparison,the proposed residential overlay for up to 1,000 single-family
residential units is forecasted to result in 8,648 daily trips, including 656 AM peak hour trips and
928 PM peak hour trips. Therefore,the proposed change in use from service commercial to
residential overlay would result in a substantial decrease of project-generated trips as a result of
less intensive uses. Amending the use from service commercial to residential would result in
approximately 14,112 less daily trips,including 482 less AM peak hour trips and 1,120 less PM
peak hour trips in the Project vicinity.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-27 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
Comment Letter 7
Mr. Lawrence A. Nordstrom
40367 Augusta Road
Temecula, CA 92591-7550
March 5, 2020
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
Attn: Scott Cooper, Associate Planner
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Harveston General Plan Amendment & Specific Plan Amendment— Planning Area 12
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Heirloom Farms)
State Clearinghouse Number 2019070974
It is my understanding that the Draft SEIR is open for public review and comments until March 16t"2020. T7-A
I have reviewed the Subject Draft SEIR Document and I offer the following comments: 1
1) The current zoning in this Specific Plan Area is SC, Service Commercial, and this zoning has
existed for over 20 years. This area is within a major I-15 Freeway "corridor" with an Audi and a 7-13
Mercedes Dealership currently existing on a portion of this land. The Draft SEIR does not address
the sound planning logic that went into the city of Temecula designating this area as SC Zoning
rather than allowing Residential land use originally.
2) This area is not only within a major I-15 Freeway "corridor" but also a major Freeway Interchange
at Date Street yet to be constructed. The Draft SEIR does not adequately address the Significant
Negative Impacts that these two traffic facilities will have on residential homes in this area, and 7-C
are extremely difficult to mitigate, and in fact this document indicates "significance determination
after mitigation".
3) Within the ES.3 Project Objectives listing there is no mention of the Quality of Life for people that
would be living in this proposed residential area as opposed to other residential areas throughout
the City of Temecula. Due to many years of good Planning/zoning for housing, Temecula
residents and the City have enjoyed A Quality of Life both in fact and reputation that they are not 7-�
only very proud of, but well known for throughout the State. The Negative Impact to the Quality of
Life for people that would be living in this proposed residential area vs Temecula residential
overall, should be indicated.
4) The Document within ESA indicates "...there are no specific detailed project plans or proposed
project designs." This is not accurate as there have been at least two public meetings hosted by
the landowner Mr. Steve Beri: the first was on June 19, 2018 concerning a Proposed Project titled
"Harveston II" for 325 homes; the second was on February 20, 2020 concerning the same site but
retitled to "Heirloom Farms" for 321 homes. Both of these were public meetings held at the 7-E
Harveston Lake House and Temecula City Staff attended these meetings. City Staff also hosted a
Public Scoping Meeting for the preparation of the Draft EIR on August 8, 2019, and this was held
at the same Harveston site. For transparency of Plans that have been circulating by the property
owner, Mr. Steve Beri, and with full knowledge of city staff for over the past 20 plus months, these
meetings and Proposed Project should be noted in this Draft SEIR document.
5) This Draft SEIR does not adequately address the negative impacts to the schools created by
overlaying the existing SC with residential SPI (Specific Plan Implementation). Residential
housing, as opposed to the existing SC, will have significant negative impacts for each of the 7-F
school levels, elementary, middle, and high school due to overcrowding at each. This will create a
burden for both the possible new homeowners and the existing homeowners that live in these
school boundaries as no new classroom space is projected in this Draft SEIR.
6) The Draft SEIR does not address the very important issue of Safe Route to School. The "safe
route to schools" from this site would require young children to travel a long distance to get to the
Ysabel Barnett Elementary School along with crossing not one but two major streets, Ynez Road 7-G
and Date Street. This negative impact does not exist with the zoning of SC, but with the Proposed
Residential Overlay (SPI) it becomes a major safety issue for children, and again, a negative
Quality of Life issue for Tememula.
I have sent this review to your e-mail at scott.cooper(a)_TemeculaCA.gov and also a hard copy by US Mail
service.
Please call me at 951 296-9446 if you have any questions and/or wish to discuss any of these Draft
SEIR issues.
3.Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 7: Lawrence A. Nordstrom
Comment 7-A
The comment states an understanding of the dates for the public review period. The commenter
states he has reviewed the Draft SEIR.
Response 7-A
The comment is noted and saved in the project record.No response is required because there are
no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 7-B
The comment states that the Draft SEIR does not address the original planning logic that went
into the City designating the Project Site as service commercial zoning rather than allowing
residential land use.
Response 7-B
As discussed in Chapter 2,Project Description,page 2-4,of the Draft SEIR,the Harveston Specific
Plan was initially approved by the City of Temecula City Council in 2001. The Specific Plan was
divided into 12 planning areas in an effort to create a distinct cluster of future uses/activities and
to identify potential time frames for individual project development to occur in a timely manner
within the overall Specific Plan concept.As provided in Section 2.7 on page 2-8 of the Draft SEIR,
the Project objectives include the development of residential development. The Draft SEIR is not
required to address the City's original decision to designate the Project Site as service commercial
versus residential. This Draft SEIR has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of the Project which would include a general plan amendment(GPA)that would change
the existing General Plan land use designation from Service Commercial (SC)to Specific Plan
Implementation(SPI) and a specific plan amendment that would include a residential overlay to
the Specific Plan on an 87.54-acre portion of Planning Area 12.No further response is required
because there are no specific comments on the contents in the Draft SEIR.
Comment 7-C
The comment states the project area is not only within a major I-15 freeway"corridor"but also a
major freeway interchange at Date Street yet to be constructed. The comment states the Draft SEIR
does not adequately address the significant negative impacts that both facilities would have on
residential homes in the area,which are extremely difficult to mitigate. The comment states the
document indicates"significant determination after mitigation".
Response 7-C
The Draft SEIR evaluated the potential effects of the 1-15 freeway and future freeway
interchange at Date Street. Improvements to the 1-15 freeway as well as the development of the
interchange are included within the list of cumulative projects in Table 3.0-1 on page 3-6 of the
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-30 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
Draft SEIR as the I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements Phase II and III. The primary
environmental effects of the freeway improvements and the interchange include air emissions
and noise levels.
Section 3.1,Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR includes a health risk assessment to determine the
potential effects of future traffic volumes along the I-15 freeway on the proposed residential
uses. As discussed on page 3.1-44 of the Draft SEIR, exposure to diesel PM from projected
2035 traffic volumes along the I-15 would result in a maximum cancer risk of approximately 144
in one million and a chronic health risk would be up to approximately 0.12 based on distance of
the proposed residential uses from the freeway. The cancer risk from the freeway of 144 is less
than the SCAQMD's cumulative background risk of the project vicinity of 463 in one million.
The projected chronic health risk is less than the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
significance threshold of 1.0.
Section 3.7,Noise, of the Draft SEIR includes a noise evaluation of the traffic noise impacts on
the future proposed residences from 2035 traffic volumes along the I-15 freeway. As discussed
on pages 3.7-33 and 3.7-34, the 2035 traffic noise level is projected to be 85 dBA CNEL at a
distance of 140 feet from the freeway centerline. As discussed,the 65 dBA CNEL noise level,
which is City's exterior noise standard,would extend throughout the Project site. An exterior
noise level of 65 dBA CNEL is required for standard building attenuation to achieve the City's
45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. As provided in Mitigation Measures N-3 through N-5,
exterior noise attenuation features are required to be incorporated into each individual project
on the Project site so that exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL for outdoor living areas such
as backyards associated with residential uses are achieved. These exterior noise attenuation
features could include sound walls and/or berms. In addition, as provided in Mitigation
Measures N-8 through N-10, interior noise attenuation features are required to be incorporated
into each individual project on the Project site so that interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL
within residences are achieved. These interior noise attenuation features could include
upgraded windows and building construction. The implementation of these mitigation measures
would reduce potential noise impacts from the I-15 freeway and the Date Street(French Valley
Parkway) interchange to less than significant.
Comment 7-D
The comment states within the Project objectives,there is no mention of an impact on the quality
of life for people that would be living in the proposed residential area as opposed to other
residential areas throughout the City of Temecula.
Response 7-D
The Project objectives were provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b).
The Project objectives is a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project. The
objectives provided were not required to provide statements regarding quality of life impacts.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-31 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
Please see Response 7-C above regarding the evaluation of the air quality and noise effects from
future traffic volumes along the I-15 freeway and at the Date Street(French Valley Parkway)
interchange.
Comment 7-E
The comment addresses the following statement in the Draft SEIR"...there are no specific
detailed project plans or proposed project designs."The commenter states that is not accurate as
there have been at least two public meetings for"Harveston II"and"Heirloom Farms"hosted by
the landowner Mr. Steve Beri with City staff in attendance. The comment states these meetings
and projects should be noted in the Draft SEIR.
Response 7-E
On July 24,2019, in accordance with Sections 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines,the City
published a Notice of Preparation(NOP)of the Draft SEIR, and circulated it to the State
Clearinghouse,resources agencies, and interested parties. At that time, no development
applications for the Project Site had been submitted to City staff. The unit count of single-family
residences and multi-family residences was unknown as there were no specific detailed project
plans or proposed project designs. For the purposes of the EIR analysis,the residential overlay
assumed 1,000 small lot detached single-family homes that would be developed with an opening
year of 2021 and buildout year of 2024. This Final Subsequent EIR is a Program EIR that
evaluates a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. As individual tract map
applications are submitted,the City will determine the additional CEQA documentation required
prior to the City Council deliberating the approval of these individual maps.
Comment 7-F
The comment states the Draft SEIR fails to adequately address the negative impacts to the
schools created by overlaying the existing service commercial with a residential specific plan
implementation. Residential housing can be expected to have significant negative impacts for all
school levels due to overcrowding.
Response 7-F
Section 3.9, Public Services, of the Draft SEIR, addresses whether potential impacts to the
Temecula Valley Unified School District(TVUSD)would require the need for new or physically
altered facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives. As described on page
3.9-23, implementation of the Project would include up to 1,000 single-family residences
resulting in a population increase of 3,340 persons. Based on the student generation factors
provided by the TVUSD,by Project buildout year of 2024,the Project would generate
approximately 409 elementary school students,204 middle school students, and 231 high school
students for a total of 844 school-aged children. The Ysabel Barnett Elementary School,the
James L. Day Middle Schools, and the Chaparral High School would not have the capacity for the
estimated students generated by the Project.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-32 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
As described on page 3.9-24,pursuant to SB 50 (Section 65995 of the Government Code),
payment of fees to the TVUSD is considered full mitigation for Project impacts, including
impacts related to 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. As of 2019,TVUSD's developer fees for residential development is
$3.79 per square foot of single family and multi-family residential units(TVUSD Fee Website,
2019).As such,with payment of fees to the TVUSD from future development of the Project, a
less than significant school impact would occur.
Comment 7-G
The comment states the Draft SEIR does not address the issue of safe route to school. The route
to schools from this site would require young children to travel a long distance to get to the
Ysabel Barnett Elementary School along with the crossing two major streets,Ynez Road and
Date Street. Due to the proximity of the development to the affected schools, significant traffic
increases can be expected due to parents driving their children to school rather than allowing
them to walk. This impact would not exist with the zoning of service commercial,but with the
proposed residential overlay it becomes both a major safety issue for children, as well as a traffic
issue, and represents a negative quality of life issue.
Response 7-G
The Project Site is located within the attendance areas of Ysabel Barnett Elementary School
(grades K-5),James L. Day Middle School(grades 6-8), and Chaparral High School(graded 9-
12).Ysabel Barnett Elementary School at 39925 Harveston Drive,Temecula, CA 92591,is
located approximately 1.2 miles east of the Project Site. James L. Day Middle School at 40775
Camino Campos Verdes, Temecula, CA 92591, is located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of
the Project Site. The Chaparral High School at 27215 Nicolas Road,Temecula, CA 92591, is
located approximately 2.5 east of the Project Site.
As there are no specific detailed project plans or proposed project designs, internal circulation is
not known at this time. The Project will include sidewalks within the Project Site in accordance
with City standards. Sidewalks currently exist on both the west and east sides of Ynez Road and
the north and south sides of Date Street. Crosswalks currently exist at the Ynez Road and Date
Street intersection. The safe route to schools from the Project Site is along the sidewalk on the
east side of Ynez Road to the crosswalk at the intersection of Ynez Road and Date Street and then
continuing west along the sidewalk on the north side of Date Street. The existing sidewalks on
Date Street extend to the schools.Therefore,the existing school routes from the Project Site
would provide adequate safe route to school for school-aged children.
Table 3.11-7, on page 3.11-17, of the Section 3.11,Transportation, summarizes the forecasted trip
generation of the Project,which includes up to 1,000 small lot detached single-family homes
categorized as Single-Family Detached Housing. The forecasted project trip generation is 8,648.
The ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 1Ot1i Edition,2016,generation rate takes into consideration
vehicular trips to schools.As described above in Response 6.E,the traffic study concluded with
implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1,the Project would not result in significant traffic
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-33 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
3.Responses to Comments
impacts. Mitigation Measure T-1 requires that prior to the first building permit,the developer
shall install a traffic signal with left and right turns permitted at the Ynez Road and Waverly Lane
intersection.
As shown in Table 12-1 of the Traffic Impact Analysis(Appendix 1),the service commercial use
was forecasted to result in 22,760 daily trips, including 1,138 AM peak hour trips and 2,048 PM
peak hour trips. In comparison,the proposed residential overlay for up to 1,000 single-family
residential units is forecasted to result in 8,648 daily trips, including 656 AM peak hour trips and
928 PM peak hour trips. Therefore,the proposed change in use from service commercial to
residential overlay would result in a substantial decrease of project-generated trips as a result of
less intensive uses. Amending the use from service commercial to residential would result in
approximately 14,112 less daily trips,including 482 less AM peak hour trips and 1,120 less PM
peak hour trips in the Project vicinity.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 3-34 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
CHAPTER 4
Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
This chapter contains a compilation of revisions made to the text of the Draft SEIR by the City as
the Lead Agency, in response to the comments received during the 45-day public review period
as well as minor edits.All revisions are previously introduced in Chapter 3 of this Final SEIR but
are summarized here for convenience of the reader.Where the responses indicate additions or
deletions to the text of the Draft SEIR, additions are indicated in underline and deletions in
tr k
Section 3.2, Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-21
Page 3.1-27
Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, each project
applicant shall conduct protocol BUOW surveys in accordance with the protocols established by
CDFW in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation to confirm the
presence/absence of BUOW within the Project Site and the buffer area identified within the
CDFW protocol; namely!, a breeding season survey consisting of four visits(one durin the
period February 15—April 15; two visits, at least three weeks apart,between April 15 and June
15; and a fourth visit after June 15,to be conducted at least three weeks after the third visit) and a
one-day pre-construction survey to take place no more than 14 days before beginningground-
disturbing
activities on the Project Site. For the timings of the breeding season surveys,these may
be modified in collaboration with CDFW. If the burrowing owl is present,protection measures,
including active or passive relocation, shall be developed in consultation with CDFW to ensure
compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other applicable CDFW Code requirements
and include,but are not limited to the following:
• Occupied BUOW shall not be disturbed during nesting season unless a qualified biologist
verifies through non-invasive methods that either 1)the birds have not begun egg-laying
or incubation or 2)that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently
and are capable of an independent survival flight.
• A burrowing owl relocation plan shall be prepared that recommends methods needed to
relocate the burrowing owls from the project site and provide measures that will be
1 Please note,the correction to Mitigation Measure BI0-2 is also corrected in Chapter 5,Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program,Table 5-1,Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Harveston General Plan
(GPA)and Specific Plan(SPA)—Planning Area 12 Project,page 5-4.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 4-1 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
4.Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
implemented for the maintenance,monitoring, and reporting of the relocated burrowing
owls to increase chances of survivorship and better ensure compliance with CDFW
guidelines. This plan shall be implemented during the non-breeding season, and prior to
seasonal rains to promote the best outcome for conservation of the burrowing owl.
In addition to the above, each project applicant can choose to conduct additional BUOW surveys
in advance of the prescribed pre-construction survey(s)protocol established by CDFW in order to
assess the presence/absence of BUOW on the project site. Surveys conducted earlier than the
prescribed pre-construction surveys per CDFW guidelines,would allow each project applicant to
start early consultation with CDFW regarding BUOW relocation(assuming BUOW are present
within the project site)well in advance of project construction activities. However,early surveys
and consultation with CDFW does not eliminate the need to conduct a pre-construction clearance
survey in accordance with CDFW guidelines. The pre-construction clearance survey shall be
conducted within 14 days of ground disturbance to document the continued absence of burrowing
owl from the project site as well as the buffer areas. If construction is delayed or suspended for
more than 30 days after the clearance survey,the project site as well as the buffer areas shall be
resurveyed.
All protective measures,including relocation, shall be reviewed and approved by the CDFW prior
to the initiating any ground disturbing activities.
Section 3.7, Noise
Although not in response to a comment on the Draft SEIR,the City has included the following
revisions to Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-10.
Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-102
Pages 3.7-34 through 3.7-35
Exterior Noise Mitigation
Mitigation Measure N-1: Ynez Road from Date Street to County Center Drive: Prior to the
issuance of each building permit,each project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to
residences located within 304 feet of the Ynez Road centerline. The noise attenuation features shall
achieve an exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for outdoor living areas such
as backyards associated with residential uses.The noise attenuation features to achieve the exterior
noise standards could include sound walls,berms,or a combination of the two.For those residences
proposed to be located within 304 feet of Ynez Road between Date Street and County Center Drive,
each project applicant shall demonstrate that the City's exterior noise standards will be achieved
through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula Community
Development Department.Building permits shall not be issued for these residences until the Citv of
Temecula verifies that the City's exterior noise standards have been achieved.
2 Please note,the corrections to Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-10 are also corrected in Chapter 5,Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program,Table 5-1,Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Harveston
General Plan(GPA)and Specific Plan(SPA)—Planning Area 12 Project,pages 5-9 through 5-13.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 4-2 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
4.Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure N-2: Ynez Road from Date Street to Waverly Prior to the issuance of
each building permit, each project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to residences
located within 271 feet of the Ynez Road centerline. The noise attenuation features shall achieve
an exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for outdoor living areas such as
backyards associated with residential uses. The noise attenuation features to achieve the exterior
noise standards could include sound walls,berms, or a combination of the two. For those
residences proposed to be located within 271 feet of Ynez Road between Date Street and Waverly
Lane, each project applicant shall demonstrate that the City's exterior noise standards will be
achieved through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula
Community Development Department. Building Dermits shall not be issued for these residences
until the City of Temecula verifies that the City's exterior noise standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-3: Date Street/French Valley Parkway from Ynez Road to the
I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, each
project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to residences located within 551 feet of
the Date Street/French Valley Parkway centerline. The noise attenuation features shall achieve an
exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for outdoor living areas such as
backyards associated with residential uses. The noise attenuation features to achieve the exterior
noise standards could include sound walls,berms, or a combination of the two. For those
residences proposed to be located within 551 feet of Date Street/French Valley Parkway between
Ynez Road to the 1-1 5/French Valley Parkway Interchange, each project applicant shall
demonstrate that the City's exterior noise standards will be achieved through the preparation and
submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula Community Development Department.
Building permits shall not be issued for these residences until the City of Temecula verifies that
the City's exterior noise standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-4: 1-15 North of the Future I-15/French Valley Interchange: Prior to the
issuance of each building permit, each project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to
residences located anywhere on the Project Site. The noise attenuation features shall achieve an
exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for outdoor living areas such as
backyards associated with residential uses. The features to attenuate freeway noise levels so that
the exterior noise standards could be achieved include sound walls,berms, or a combination of
the two. Each project applicant shall demonstrate that the City's exterior standards will be
achieved through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula
Community Development Department. Building Dermits shall not be issued for these residences
until the City of Temecula verifies that the City's exterior noise standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-5: 1-15 South of the Future 1-15/French Valley Interchange: Prior to the
issuance of each building permit, each project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to
residences located anywhere on the Project Site. The noise attenuation features shall achieve an
exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for outdoor living areas such as
backyards associated with residential uses. The features to attenuate freeway noise levels so that
the exterior noise standards could be achieved include sound walls,berms, or a combination of
the two. Each project applicant shall demonstrate that the City's exterior noise standards will be
achieved through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 4-3 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
4.Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
Community Development Department. Building hermits shall not be issued for these residences
until the City of Temecula verifies that the City's exterior noise standards have been achieved.
Interior Noise Mitigation
Mitigation Measure N-6: Ynez Road from Date Street to County Center Drive: Prior to the
issuance of each building permit, each project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to
residences located within 121 feet of the Ynez Road centerline to achieve the interior noise
standard of 45 dBA CNEL or Ldn.Windows proposed within 121 feet from the Ynez Road
centerline need to be upgraded with sound transmission class rating(STC)higher than standard
building construction(i.e.,windows ranging up to STC-28). Each project applicant shall
demonstrate that the City's interior noise standards will be achieved through the preparation and
submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula Community Development Department.
Building hermits shall not be issued for these residences until the City of Temecula verifies that
the City's interior noise standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-7: Ynez Road from Date Street to Waverly Lane: Prior to the issuance of
each building permit, each project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to residences
located within 108 feet of the Ynez Road centerline to achieve the interior noise standard of 45
dBA CNEL or Ldn. Windows proposed within 108 feet from the Ynez Road centerline need to be
upgraded with sound transmission class rating(STC)higher than standard building construction
(i.e.,windows ranging up to STC-28). Each project applicant shall demonstrate that the City's
interior noise standards will be achieved through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study
to the City of Temecula Community Development Department. Building hermits shall not be
issued for these residences until the Citv of Temecula verifies that the City's interior noise
standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-8: Date Street/French Valley Parkway from Ynez Road to the I
15/French Valley Parkway Interchange: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, each
project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to residences located within 219 feet of
the Ynez Road centerline to achieve the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL or Ldn.
Windows proposed within 219 feet from the Ynez Road centerline need to be upgraded with
sound transmission class rating(STC)higher than standard building construction(i.e.,windows
ranging up to STC-28). Each project applicant shall demonstrate that the City's interior noise
standards will be achieved through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of
Temecula Community Development Department. Building hermits shall not be issued for these
residences until the City of Temecula verifies that the City's interior noise standards have been
achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-9: 1-15 North of the future I 15/French Valley Interchange: Prior to the
issuance of each building permit, each project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features
for all onsite residences to achieve the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL or Ldn. Windows
proposed within each residence need to be upgraded with sound transmission class rating(STC)
higher than standard building construction would provide. Each project applicant shall
demonstrate that the City's interior noise standards will be achieved through the preparation and
submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula Community Development Department.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 4-4 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
4.Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
Building permits shall not be issued for these residences until the City of Temecula verifies that
the City's interior noise standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-10: I-15 South of the future I 15/17rench Valley Interchange: Prior to the
issuance of each building permit, each project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features
for all onsite residences to achieve the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL or Ldn. Windows
proposed within each residence need to be upgraded with sound transmission class rating(STC)
higher than standard building construction would provide. Each project applicant shall
demonstrate that the City's interior noise standards will be achieved through the preparation and
submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula Community Development Department.
Building permits shall not be issued for these residences until the City of Temecula verifies that
the City's interior noise standards have been achieved.
Chapter 4, Alternatives
Section 4.6, Alternatives for Further Study
Page 4-5, second paragraph, last sentence
The Mixed Residential Development Alternative(Alternative 3) assumes that, similar to the
Project,the proposed General Plan Amendment(GPA)to update the land use designation from
Service Commercial(SC)to Specific Plan Implementation(SPI) and the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment(SPA)that would include a residential overlay to Harveston Specific Plan on an
87.54-acre portion of Planning Area 12 would be adopted and implemented. However,the
residential overlay would not allow the future development of a maximum of 1,000 single-family
residential units. Instead, for Alternative 3, it is assumed the residential overlay would allow the
future development of a maximum of 570 single-family residential units(i.e., detached and
attached) and 430 multi-family units (i.e., apartments).
Page 4-5, third paragraph, last sentence
The Alternative/Mixed Use Land Use Alternative(Alternative 4)assumes that the current land
use designation of Service Commercial(SC)would remain for the four(4)parcels adjacent and
nearest the 1-15 (APNs 916400058, 916400042, 916400052, and 91600053). The existing
acreages for APNs 916400058, 916400042, 916400052, and 91600053 are approximately 4.81
acres, 10.21 acres, 5.36 acres, and 7.87 acres,respectively. These four(4)parcels comprise of
approximately 28.25 acres, or approximately 32 percent of the Project Site. Applying the target
floor area ratio of 0.3 for service commercial uses per Table 3.1,Detailed Land Use Summary, of
the approved Harveston Specific Plan,Alternative 4 would assume a proposed 369,171 square
feet of service commercial uses within the Project Site. It is assumed the remaining parcels would
include the General Plan Amendment(GPA)to update the land use designation from Service
Commercial(SC)to Specific Plan Implementation(SPI). It is also assumed the remaining parcels
would include the proposed Specific Plan Amendment(SPA)which would include a residential
overlay. The remaining parcels comprise of approximately 59.29 acres, or approximately 68
percent of the Project Site which would comprise of approximately 680 single-family residential
units(i.e.,detached and attached).
Harveston GPA/SPA-Planning Area 12 4-55 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
4.Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
Section 4.9, Environmental Analysis of the Mixed Residential
Development Alternative (Alternative 3)
Page 4-15, fourth paragraph, last sentence
As described above,the Mixed Residential Development Alternative(Alternative 3)assumes
that, similar to the Project,the proposed General Plan Amendment(GPA)to update the land use
designation from Service Commercial(SC)to Specific Plan Implementation(SPI) and the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment(SPA)that would include a residential overlay to Harveston
Specific Plan on an 87.54-acre portion of Planning Area 12 would be adopted and implemented.
However,the residential overlay would not allow the future development of a maximum of 1,000
single-family residential units. Instead, for Alternative 3, it is assumed the residential overlay
would allow the future development of a maximum of 570 single-family residential units i.e.
detached and attached) and 430 multi-family units(i.e.,apartments).
Section 4.9.1, Air Quality
Page 4-15, last paragraph, last sentence
After implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2,the Project would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact to air quality due to regional operational emissions of NOx
and ROG for both the Project and cumulative level(refer to Section 3,1,Air Quality, of this Draft
SEIR).According to the Traffic Study prepared for the Project, future residential development of
the Project would generate 8,648 vehicle trips per day. Under Alternative 3, future development
of 570 single-family residential units(i.e.,detached and attached) and 430 multi-family units i.e.
apartments)would generate 8,162 vehicle trips per days,resulting in 486 less vehicle trips per day
than the Project which would represent a 6.62 percent reduction in trips.
Page 4-16, Footnote 5
570 single-family residential units (i.e., detached and attached)X 8.648 ADT Rate=4,929
vehicle trips per day.
430 multi-family units(apartments)X 7.519 units ADT Rate=3,233 trips.
Total trips= 8,162 vehicle trips per day. Source: ITE, Trip Generation Manual loth Edition,
2016. For apartments, 7.519 rate was used or units with one or two levels.
Section 4.9.1, Air Quality
Page 4-16, 6` through 8t" sentences and last sentence
Although not in response to a comment on the Draft SEIR,the City has included the following
revisions to correct typographical errors and for clarity located within Chapter 4,Alternatives. As
identified below,the mobile emissions for NOx and ROG are revised to correspond to the total
emissions identified in the evaluation.
With this reduction,this Alternative's mobile source emissions would reduce from 57 pounds per
day(lbs/day) (as shown in Table 3.1-10 in Section 3.1)to 53 lbs per day of NOx emissions and
from 21 lbs/day(as shown in Table 3.1-10 in Section 3.1)to 20 lbs/day of ROG emissions.With
these reductions,the total operational emissions associated with this Alternative would be 60
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 4-6 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
4.Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
lbs/day of NOx(1 lb/day of area sources, 6 lbs/day energy sources, and 53 29 lbs/day of mobile
sources)after mitigation and 62 lbs/day of ROG(41 lbs/day of area sources, 1 lb/day of energy
sources, and 20-5-3 lbs/day of mobile sources)after mitigation,which would still exceed the South
Coast Air Quality Management District's significance thresholds of 55 lbs/day for either ROG or
NOx. Therefore,the implementation of this Alternative would result in a reduction of ROG and
NOx emissions compared to the Project and would result in less air quality impacts; however,the
emissions associated with this Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable which is the
same significance determination as the Project. This reduction of only 6.62 percent does not
constitute a substantial decrease in emissions, compared to the emissions generated by the
Proi ectect.
Section 4.9.14, Conclusion
Page 4-19, Second paragraph
Although not in response to a comment on the Draft SEIR,the City has included the following
revisions.
Air quality standards/violations related to regional operational emissions of NOx and ROG
(Project and cumulative level) is considered a significant and unavoidable impact with the
implementation of the Project. This Alternative would reduce the regional operational NOx and
ROG emissions;however,even with this reduction, as well as the implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2,the Alternative would still result in an exceedance of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's daily significance threshold for NOx and ROG, and emissions
would remain significant and unavoidable, and the Alternative's reduction in emissions is not
considered a substantial reduction.
Section 4.10, Environmental Analysis of Alternative/Mixed Use
Land Use Alternative (Alternative 4)
Page 4-20, first paragraph, last sentence
The Alternative/Mixed Use Land Use Alternative(Alternative 4)assumes that the current land
use designation of Service Commercial(SC)would remain for the four(4)parcels adjacent and
nearest the I-15 (APNs 916400058, 916400042, 916400052, and 91600053). The existing
acreages for APNs 916400058, 916400042, 916400052, and 91600053 are approximately
4.81 acres, 10.21 acres, 5.36 acres, and 7.87 acres,respectively. These four(4)parcels comprise
of approximately 28.25 acres, or approximately 32 percent of the Project Site. Applying the target
floor area ratio of 0.3 for service commercial uses per Table 3.1,Detailed Land Use Summary, of
the approved Harveston Specific Plan,Alternative 4 would assume a proposed 369,1713 square
feet of service commercial uses within the Project Site. It is assumed the remaining parcels would
include the General Plan Amendment(GPA)to update the land use designation from Service
Commercial(SC)to Specific Plan Implementation(SPI). It is also assumed the remaining parcels
would include the proposed Specific Plan Amendment(SPA)which would include a residential
overlay. The remaining parcels comprise of approximately 59.29 acres, or approximately 68
3 28.25 acres X 43,560 square feet=1,230,570 square feet X 0.3=369,171 square feet of service commercial uses.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 4-7 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
4.Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
percent of the Project Site which would comprise of approximately 680 single-family residential
units(i.e.,detached and attached).
Section 4.10.1, Air Quality
Page 4-20, second paragraph, third sentence
After implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2,the Project would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact to air quality due to regional operational emissions of NOx
and ROG for both the Project and cumulative level(refer to Section 3,1,Air Quality, of this Draft
SEIR).According to the Traffic Study prepared for the Project, future residential development of
the Project would generate 8,648 vehicle trips per day. The implementation of Alternative 4
would result in 369,171 square feet of service commercial uses and 680 single-family residential
units(i.e.,detached and attached). This Alternative would generate 13,226 vehicle trips per day',
resulting in 4,578 more vehicle trips per day than the Project. Because Alternative 4 would
generate approximately 1.5 times more vehicle trips per day and approximately 1.5 times more
mobile-source emissions than the Project,Alternative 4 would result in a greater significant and
unavoidable impact to air quality when compared to the Project.
Page 4-20, Footnote 7
680 single-family residential units (i.e.,detached and attached)X 8.648 ADT Rate=5,881
vehicle trips per day.
28.25 acres X 260.00 ADT Rate=7,345 vehicle trips per day.
Total trips= 13,226 vehicle trips per day. Source: ITE, Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition,
2016.
Section 4.11 , Environmentally Superior Alternative
Page 4-24, last paragraph
Although not in response to a comment on the Draft SEIR,the City has included the following
revisions.
As discussed above, air quality standards/violations related to regional operational emissions of
NOx and ROG(Project and cumulative level) is considered significant and unavoidable with the
implementation of the Project. Alternative 3 would reduce the regional operational NOx and
ROG emissions;however,even with this reduction, as well as the implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2,Alternative 3 would still result in an exceedance of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's daily significance threshold for NOx and ROG, emissions
would remain significant and unavoidable; and the decrease in emissions is not considered to be
substantial. This Alternative cwould meet the objectives established for the Project. With the
reduction of impacts,Alternative 3 is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative of
the alternatives evaluated above and would be environmentally superior to the Project.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 4-8 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
CHAPTER 5
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA Requirements
Section 15091(d) and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines require a public agency to adopt a
program for monitoring or reporting on the changes it has required in the project or conditions of
approval to substantially lessen significant environmental effects.This Mitigation,Monitoring
and Reporting Program(MMRP) summarizes the mitigation commitments identified in the
proposed Harveston General Plan Amendment(GPA) and Specific Plan Amendment(SPA)—
Planning Area 12 (Project)(State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974).Mitigation measures are
presented in the same order as they occur in the Final SEIR.
The columns in the MMRP table provide the following information:
• Mitigation Measure(s): The action(s)that will be taken to reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
• Implementation,Monitoring, and Reporting Action: The appropriate steps to implement
and document compliance with the mitigation measures.
• Responsibility: The agency or private entity responsible for ensuring implementation of the
mitigation measure. However,until the mitigation measures are completed, the City, as the
CEQA Lead Agency,remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation
measures occur in accordance with the MMRP(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15O97(a)).
• Monitoring Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each task. Because the proposed
project does not include a construction phase,the general schedule is summarized as either
"prior to operation"and/or"during operation".
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 5-1 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
TABLE 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE HARVESTON GENERAL PLAN(GPA)AND SPECIFIC PLAN(SPA)—PLANNING AREA 12 PROJECT
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: During Project construction,all internal Construction City of City of Field
combustion engines/construction equipment(including tug boats but Temecula Temecula Verification and
excluding crew and bio-survey boats)exceeding 50 horse power Sign-Off by
and operating on the Project Site shall meet Tier 4 CARB/U.S.EPA City of
emission standards. If not already supplied with a factory equipped Temecula
diesel particulate filter,all off-road diesel-powered construction
equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB.
Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve
emission reductions that are no less than what could be achieved
by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized
engine as defined by CARB regulations. In addition,construction
equipment shall incorporate,where feasible,emissions savings
technology such as hybrid drives and specific fuel economy
standards. In the event that all off-road diesel-powered construction
equipment cannot meet the Tier 4 engine certification,each project
applicant shall use alternative measures,which include,but would
not be limited to,reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating
of construction equipment,limiting the number of daily construction
haul truck trips to and from the Project,using cleaner vehicle fuel,
and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases
occurring simultaneously.The effectiveness of alternative measures
must be demonstrated through a future air emissions study with
written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved
by the lead agency before use.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2:The following measures will be Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
implemented to reduce operational emissions of ROG and NOx. Post-Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
These measures are not all inclusive and additional measures can Building Official Project
be substituted or added to further reduce emissions. or other Approval
• No residential units shall be constructed with fireplaces/hearths. Designee
If this measure is substituted,total emissions reductions from the
added mitigation shall meet or exceed the emissions reductions
from the removal of fireplaces from the Project(i.e.,a reduction
in emissions equal to or greater than the reduction in emissions
between Table 3.1-8 and 3.1-10).
• Residents of single-family units shall be provided information
documenting the benefits of using low VOC paints and cleaning
supplies.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 55-2 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Air Quality(cont.)
• A Traffic Demand Management(TDM)program shall be
developed to encourage the use of non-single occupant vehicles,
including information on ride share,carpool,vanpool,bus,train
and trolley opportunities within the City and the region.
All residential parking spaces provided shall be designed to,at a
minimum,achieve CALGreen Tier standards for electric vehicle
supply equipment of the most current Title 24 iteration at the time of
building construction. Implementing projects proposed within the
SPA shall quantify NOx and ROG emissions from the implementing
project operational activities and shall demonstrate achievement of
the emissions performance standard of less than 55 pounds per day
of ROG and less than 55 pounds per day of NOx.If the performance
standard cannot be achieved,implementing projects shall
incorporate all feasible project-level mitigation such that emissions
of ROG and NOx are reduced to the furthest extent possible.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction activities,the Construction City of City of Field
construction supervisor will ensure that any welders used onsite will Temecula Temecula Verification and
be electric. Sign-Off by
City of
Temecula
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 13I0-1:Within three days of the start of any Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
ground-disturbing activity during the nesting season(February 1 to Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
August 31 for songbirds;January 15 to August 31 for raptors),a Qualified
qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to determine if there are Biologist
active nests within the onsite trees and vegetation. If an active nest
is not found,no biological monitor is required. If active nests are
detected,a minimum buffer(e.g.,300 feet for songbirds or 500 feet
for raptors)around the nest shall be delineated and flagged,and no
construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a
qualified biologist determines the nesting species have fledged and
is no longer active or the nest has failed.The buffer may be
modified(i.e.,increased or decreased)and/or other
recommendations proposed(e.g.,a temporary soundwall)as
determined appropriate by the qualified biologist to minimize
impacts.The qualified biologist shall monitor the removal of onsite
trees and vegetation.Nest buffer distance will be based on species,
specific location of the nest,the intensity of construction activities,
existing disturbances unrelated to the project and other factors.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 55-3 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Biological Resources(cont.)
Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
activity,each project applicant shall conduct protocol BUOW surveys Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
in accordance with the protocols established by CDFW in the CDFW Qualified
2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation to confirm the Biologist
presence/absence of BUOW within the Project Site and the buffer
area identified within the CDFW protocol namely,a breeding
season survey consisting of four visits(one during the period
February 15—April 15;two visits,at least three weeks apart,
between April 15 and June 15;and a fourth visit after June 15,to be
conducted at least three weeks after the third visit),and a one-day
pre-construction survey to take place no more than 14 days before
beginning ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site. For the
timings of the breeding season surveys,these may be modified in
collaboration with CDFW.If the burrowing owl is present,protective
measures,including active or passive relocation,shall be developed
in consultation with CDFW to ensure compliance with the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and other applicable CDFW Code requirements and
include,but are not limited to the following:
• Occupied BUOW shall not be disturbed during nesting season
unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods
that either 1)the birds have not begun egg-laying or incubation
or 2)that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging
independently and are capable of an independent survival flight.
• A burrowing owl relocation plan shall be prepared that recommends
methods needed to relocate the burrowing owls from the project
site and provide measures that will be implemented for the
maintenance,monitoring,and reporting of the relocated burrowing
owls to increase chances of survivorship and better ensure
compliance with CDFW guidelines.This plan shall be implemented
during the non-breeding season,and prior to seasonal rains to
promote the best outcome for conservation of the burrowing owl.
In addition to the above,each project applicant can choose to
conduct additional BUOW surveys in advance of the prescribed pre-
construction survey(s)protocol established by CDFW in order to
assess the presence/absence of BUOW on the project site.Surveys
conducted earlier than the prescribed pre-construction surveys per
CDFW guidelines,would allow each project applicant to start early
consultation with CDFW regarding BUOW relocation(assuming
BUOW are present within the project site)well in advance of project
construction activities.However,early surveys and consultation with
CDFW does not eliminate the need to conduct a pre-construction
clearance survey in accordance with CDFW guidelines.The pre-
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 5-4 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
construction clearance survey shall be conducted within 14 days of
ground disturbance to document the continued absence of burrowing
owl from the project site as well as the buffer areas. If construction
is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the clearance
survey,the project site as well as the buffer areas shall be resurveyed.
All protective measures,including relocation,shall be reviewed and
approved by the CDFW prior to the initiating any ground disturbing
activities.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1:Prior to issuance of each grading Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity,each Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist,defined as an Qualified
archeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Archeologist
Qualification Standards for archeology(U.S.Department of Interior
2012)and as approved by the City of Temecula,to provide
archaeological expertise in carrying out all mitigation measures
related to archeological resources(Mitigation Measures CUL-2
through CUL-7).
Mitigation Measure CUL-2:Prior to any ground disturbing activities Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
associated with the Project,the qualified archaeologist shall conduct Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Qualified
Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of Archeologist
archaeological resources that may be encountered,and of the
proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent
discovery of archaeological resources or human remains.Each
project applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made
available for and attend the training and retain documentation
demonstrating attendance.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: If grading activities are proposed within Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
intact native sediments on the Project Site which are anticipated to Construction Temecula Temecula City of
be 10 feet in depth or greater,the qualified archaeologist shall Qualified Temecula in
monitor ground disturbing activities.If cultural resources are Archeologist consultation
discovered,the qualified archaeologist shall have the authority to and Pechanga with Pechanga
stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to Tribal Tribe
evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps in Representatives
consultation with the City of Temecula and the Pechanga Tribe.
During the course of monitoring,if the qualified archaeologist can
demonstrate based on observations of subsurface conditions that
the level of monitoring should be reduced,increased,or
discontinued,the archaeologist,in consultation with each project
applicant and the City of Temecula may adjust the level of
monitoring,as warranted.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 55-55 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Cultural Resources(cont.)
Mitigation Measure CUL-4 If grading activities occur within Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
previously graded sediments and inadvertent discoveries of Construction Temecula Temecula City of
subsurface cultural resources are discovered,each construction Qualified Temecula in
contractor shall suspend grading within 100 feet of the find until the Archeologist consultation
qualified archaeologist evaluates the find and determines the and Pechanga with Pechanga
appropriate next steps in consultation with the City of Temecula and Tribal Tribe
the Pechanga Tribe. Representatives
Mitigation Measure CUL-5: If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
cultural resources are discovered either within the intact native Construction Temecula Temecula City of
sediments or previously graded sediments,grading activities shall Qualified Temecula in
be suspended within 100 feet of the find and each project applicant, Archeologist consultation
the qualified archaeologist,and the Pechanga Tribe shall assess and Pechanga with Pechanga
the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer Tribal Tribe
regarding the mitigation for such resources. Representatives
• Pursuant to PRC Section 21O83.2(b),avoidance is the preferred
method of preservation for archaeological resources.
• If preservation in place is not feasible,each project applicant and
Pechanga Tribe shall discuss reburial of the resources on the
Project property,in perpetuity.The measures for reburial shall
include,at least,the following:Measures and provisions to
protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in
perpetuity.Reburial shall not occur until all legally required
cataloging and basic recordation have been completed,with an
exception that sacred items,burial goods and Native American
human remains are excluded.Any reburial process shall be
culturally appropriate.Listing of contents and location of the
reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report.The
Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential
cover and not subject to Public Records Request.
• If each project applicant and the Pechanga Tribe cannot agree
on the significance or the mitigation for such resources,these
issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision.
The Planning Director will make the determination based on the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with
respect to archaeological resources and will take into account
the religious beliefs,customs,and practices of the Pechanga
Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law,
the decision of the Planning Director will be appealable to the
City Planning Commission and/or City of Temecula City Council.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 55-6 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Any newly discovered cultural resources shall be subject to a
cultural resources evaluation pursuant to state law prior to restarting
grading within 100 feet of the discovered resources.The cultural
resources evaluation of the newly discovered cultural resources
shall be detailed in a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan("Plan").
Furthermore,after ground disturbing activities are completed,the
archeologist shall prepare a monitoring report(consistent with the
County of Riverside Phase IV monitoring report requirements)and
submit the monitoring report to the City of Temecula and the
Pechanga Tribe.
Cultural Resources(cont.)
Mitigation Measure CUL-6:The landowner shall relinquish Construction/ City of City of Verification by
ownership of all cultural resources,including sacred items. burial Post-Construction Temecula Temecula City of
goods and all archaeological artifacts that are recovered as a result Qualified Temecula in
of Project implementation to the Pechanga Tribe for proper Archeologist consultation
treatment and disposition. and Pechanga with Pechanga
Tribal Tribe
Representatives
Mitigation Measure CUL-7:The developer is required to enter into Pre-Construction City of City of Verification by
a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Temecula Temecula City of
Tribe.The agreement shall be in place prior to issuance of each Qualified Temecula in
grading permit.To accomplish this,each project applicant should Archeologist consultation
contact the Pechanga Tribe no less than 30 days and no more than and Pechanga with Pechanga
60 days prior to issuance of each grading permit.This Agreement Tribal Tribe
will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources,the Representatives
designation,responsibilities,and participation of professional
Pechanga Tribal monitors during grading,excavation and ground
disturbing activities;project grading and development scheduling;
terms of compensation for the monitors;and treatment and final
disposition of any cultural resources,sacred sites,and human
remains discovered onsite.The Pechanga monitor's authority to
stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the
project archaeologist in order to evaluate the significance of any
potential resources discovered on the property.Pechanga and
archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading,
excavation and groundbreaking activities,and shall also have the
limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an
inadvertent cultural resource be identified.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 55-7 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Cultural Resources(cont.)
Mitigation Measure CUL-8: If human remains are encountered, Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no Construction Temecula Temecula City of
further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner Qualified Temecula
has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further,pursuant to Paleontologist
PRC Section 5O97.98(b),remains shall be left in place and free
from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and
disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner
determines the remains to be Native American,the NAHC must be
contacted within 24 hours.The NAHC must then immediately
identify the MLD upon receiving notification of the discovery.The
MLD shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage
in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided
in PRC Section 5097.98.
Mitigation Measure CUL-9:Prior to the start of earth moving Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
activities,each project applicant shall retain a qualified Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
paleontologist defined as one meeting SVP standards(Society for Qualified
Vertebrate Paleontology,2010)to attend any pre-grade construction Paleontologist
meetings to determine when and where excavations extend into
intact native sediments which are anticipated to be 10 feet in depth
or greater on the Project Site Working with each project applicant
and the construction crew,the qualified paleontologist shall
determine a paleontological monitoring schedule.
The qualified paleontologist,or a paleontological monitor working
under the direct supervision of the qualified paleontologist,shall
monitor all ground-disturbing activity that are proposed to extend
into intact native sediments which are anticipated to be 10 feet in
depth or greater on the Project Site.The location,duration,and
timing of monitoring shall be determined by the qualified
paleontologist designated for the Project in consultation with each
project applicant and City and shall be based on a review of
geologic maps and grading plans.During the course of monitoring,
if the qualified paleontologist can demonstrate based on
observations of subsurface conditions that the level of monitoring
should be reduced,increased,or discontinued,the paleontologist,in
consultation with each project applicant and City of Temecula may
adjust the level of monitoring,as warranted.
Monitoring activities shall be documented in a Paleontological
Resources Monitoring Report to be prepared by the qualified
paleontologist at the completion of construction and shall be
provided to the City of Temecula and filed with the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County within six(6)months of grading
completion for each individual project on the Project Site.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 55-8 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Cultural Resources(cont.)
Mitigation Measure CUL-10: Prior to start of earth moving activities Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
that are proposed to extend into intact native sediments which are Construction Temecula Temecula City of
anticipated to be 10 feet in depth or greater on the Project Site,the Qualified Temecula
qualified paleontologist shall conduct pre-construction worker Paleontologist
paleontological resources sensitivity training.This training shall
include information on what types of paleontological resources
could be encountered during excavations,what to do in case an
unanticipated discovery is made by a worker,and laws protecting
paleontological resources.All construction personnel shall be
informed of the possibility of encountering fossils and instructed to
immediately inform the construction foreman or supervisor if any
bones or other potential fossils are unexpectedly unearthed in an
area where a paleontological monitor is not present.
Mitigation Measure CUL-11: In the event of unanticipated Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
discovery of paleontological resources when a paleontological Construction Temecula Temecula City of
monitor is not present,each construction contractor shall cease Qualified Temecula
ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find until it can be Paleontological
assessed by the qualified paleontologist.The qualified
paleontologist shall assess the find,implement recovery and
reporting measures,if necessary,and determine if paleontological
monitoring is warranted once work resumes.
Noise
Mitigation Measure N-1:Ynez Road from Date Street to County Construction City of City of Issuance of
Center Drive:Prior to the issuance of each building permit,each Temecula Temecula Building Permit
project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to Building Official Noise Study
residences located within 304 feet of the Ynez Road centerline.The or other Approval by
noise attenuation features shall achieve an exterior noise standard Designee Community
of 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for outdoor living areas such as City of Development
backyards associated with residential uses.The noise attenuation Temecula Department
features to achieve the exterior noise standards could include sound Community
walls,berms,or a combination of the two.For those residences Development
proposed to be located within 304 feet of Ynez Road between Date Department or
Street and County Center Drive,each project applicant shall other Designee
demonstrate that the City's exterior noise standards will be achieved
through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of
Temecula Community Development Department.Building permits
shall not be issued for these residences until the City of Temecula
verifies that the City's exterior noise standards have been achieved.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 55-9 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Noise(cont.)
Mitigation Measure N-2:Ynez Road from Date Street to Waverly Construction City of City of Issuance of
Lane:Prior to the issuance of each building permit,each project Temecula Temecula Building Permit
applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to residences Building Official Noise Study
located within 271 feet of the Ynez Road centerline.The noise or other Approval by
attenuation features shall achieve an exterior noise standard of 65 Designee Community
dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for outdoor living areas such as City of Development
backyards associated with residential uses.The noise attenuation Temecula Department
features to achieve the exterior noise standards could include sound Community
walls,berms,or a combination of the two.For those residences Development
proposed to be located within 271 feet of Ynez Road between Date Department or
Street and Waverly Lane,each project applicant shall demonstrate other Designee
that the City's exterior noise standards will be achieved through the
preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula
Community Development Department. Building permits shall not be
issued for these residences until the City of Temecula verifies that
the City's exterior noise standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-3:Date Street/French Valley Parkway from Construction City of City of Issuance of
Ynez Road to the 1-1 5/French Valley Parkway Interchange:Prior to Temecula Temecula Building Permit
the issuance of each building permit,each project applicant shall Building Official Noise Study
provide noise attenuation features to residences located within 551 or other Approval by
feet of the Date Street/French Valley Parkway centerline.The noise Designee Community
attenuation features shall achieve an exterior noise standard of 65 City of Development
dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for outdoor living areas such as Temecula Department
backyards associated with residential uses.The noise attenuation Community
features to achieve the exterior noise standards could include sound Development
walls,berms,or a combination of the two. For those residences Department or
proposed to be located within 551 feet of Date Street/French Valley other Designee
Parkway between Ynez Road to the 1-1 5/French Valley Parkway
Interchange,each project applicant shall demonstrate that the City's
exterior noise standards will be achieved through the preparation
and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula Community
Development Department.Building permits shall not be issued for
these residences until the City of Temecula verifies that the City's
exterior noise standards have been achieved.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 5-10 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Noise(cont.)
Mitigation Measure N-4: 1-15 North of the future 1-1 5/French Valley Construction City of City of Issuance of
Interchange:Prior to the issuance of each building permit,each project Temecula Temecula Building Permit
applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to residences located Building Official Noise Study
anywhere on the Project Site.The noise attenuation features shall or other Approval by
achieve an exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for Designee Community
outdoor living areas such as backyards associated with residential City of Development
uses.The features to attenuate freeway noise levels so that the Temecula Department
exterior noise standards could be achieved include sound walls, Community
berms,or a combination of the two.Each project applicant shall Development
demonstrate that the City's exterior standards will be achieved through Department or
the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula other Designee
Community Development Department.Building permits shall not be
issued for these residences until the City of Temecula verifies that the
City's exterior noise standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-5:1-15 South of the future 1-1 5/French Valley Construction City of City of Issuance of
Interchange:Prior to the issuance of each building permit,each project Temecula Temecula Building Permit
applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to residences located Building Official Noise Study
anywhere on the Project Site.The noise attenuation features shall or other Approval by
achieve an exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn or lower for Designee Community
outdoor living areas such as backyards associated with residential City of Development
uses.The features to attenuate freeway noise levels so that the Temecula Department
exterior noise standards could be achieved include sound walls, Community
berms,or a combination of the two.Each project applicant shall Development
demonstrate that the City's exterior noise standards will be achieved Department or
through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of other Designee
Temecula Community Development Department.Building permits shall
not be issued for these residences until the City of Temecula verifies
that the City's exterior noise standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-6:Ynez Road from Date Street to County Construction City of City of Issuance of
Center Drive:Prior to the issuance of each building permit,each Temecula Temecula Building Permit
project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to Building Official Noise Study
residences located within 121 feet of the Ynez Road centerline to or other Approval by
achieve the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL or Ldn. Designee Community
Windows proposed within 121 feet from the Ynez Road centerline City of Development
need to be upgraded with sound transmission class rating(STC) Temecula Department
higher than standard building construction(i.e.,windows ranging up Community
to STC-28).Each project applicant shall demonstrate that the City's Development
interior noise standards will be achieved through the preparation Department or
and submittal of a Noise Study to the City of Temecula Community other Designee
Development Department.Building permits shall not be issued for
these residences until the City of Temecula verifies that the City's
interior noise standards have been achieved.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 5-11 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Noise(cont.)
Mitigation Measure N-7:Ynez Road from Date Street to Waverly Construction City of City of Issuance of
Lane:Prior to the issuance of each building permit,each project Temecula Temecula Building Permit
applicant shall provide noise attenuation features to residences Building Official Noise Study
located within 108 feet of the Ynez Road centerline to achieve the or other Approval by
interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL or Ldn.Windows proposed Designee Community
within 108 feet from the Ynez Road centerline need to be upgraded City of Development
with sound transmission class rating(STC)higher than standard Temecula Department
building construction(i.e.,windows ranging up to STC-28).Each Community
project applicant shall demonstrate that the City's interior noise Development
standards will be achieved through the preparation and submittal of Department or
a Noise Study to the City of Temecula Community Development other Designee
Department.Building permits shall not be issued for these
residences until the City of Temecula verifies that the City's interior
noise standards have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-8:Date Street/French Valley Parkway from Construction City of City of Issuance of
Ynez Road to the 1-1 5/French Valley Parkway Interchange:Prior to Temecula Temecula Building Permit
the issuance of each building permit,each project applicant shall Building Official Noise Study
provide noise attenuation features to residences located within 219 or other Approval by
feet of the Ynez Road centerline to achieve the interior noise Designee Community
standard of 45 dBA CNEL or Ldn.Windows proposed within 219 City of Development
feet from the Ynez Road centerline need to be upgraded with sound Temecula Department
transmission class rating(STC)higher than standard building Community
construction(i.e.,windows ranging up to STC-28).Each project Development
applicant shall demonstrate that the City's interior noise standards Department or
will be achieved through the preparation and submittal of a Noise other Designee
Study to the City of Temecula Community Development
Department.Building permits shall not be issued for these
residences until the City of Temecula verifies that the City's interior
noise standards have been achieved.
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 5-12 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Noise(cont.)
Mitigation Measure N-9:1-15 North of the future 1-1 5/French Valley Construction City of City of Issuance of
Interchange:Prior to the issuance of each building permit,each Temecula Temecula Building Permit
project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features for all Building Official Noise Study
onsite residences to achieve the interior noise standard of 45 dBA or other Approval by
CNEL or Ldn.Windows proposed within each residence need to be Designee Community
upgraded with sound transmission class rating(STC)higher than City of Development
standard building construction would provide. Each project applicant Temecula Department
shall demonstrate that the City's interior noise standards will be Community
achieved through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to Development
the City of Temecula Community Development Department. Department or
Building permits shall not be issued for these residences until the other Designee
City of Temecula verifies that the City's interior noise standards
have been achieved.
Mitigation Measure N-10: 1-15 South of the future 1-15/French Construction City of City of Issuance of
Valley Interchange:Prior to the issuance of each building permit, Temecula Temecula Building Permit
each project applicant shall provide noise attenuation features for all Building Official Noise Study
onsite residences to achieve the interior noise standard of 45 dBA or other Approval by
CNEL or Ldn.Windows proposed within each residence need to be Designee Community
upgraded with sound transmission class rating(STC)higher than City of Development
standard building construction would provide. Each project applicant Temecula Department
shall demonstrate that the City's interior noise standards will be Community
achieved through the preparation and submittal of a Noise Study to Development
the City of Temecula Community Development Department. Department or
Building permits shall not be issued for these residences until the other Designee
City of Temecula verifies that the City's interior noise standards
have been achieved.
Transportation
Mitigation Measure T-1:Ynez Road and Waverly Lane: Prior to the Construction City of City of Issuance of
first building permit,the developer shall install a traffic signal with Temecula Temecula Building Permit
left and right turns permitted. Building Official
or other
Designee
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 5-13 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020
5.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This page intentionally left blank
Harveston GPA/SPA—Planning Area 12 5-14 ESA /D181343
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report October 2020