The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHarveston Draft EIR Y _ 1 W Harveston • / c / l a k e at / Draft Environmental Impact City of November 2000 ' HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ' DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #99041033 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92589 PREPARED BY: EDAW, INC. 17875 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 400 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 t U NOVEMBER, 2000 HARVESTON EIR TABLE OF CO NTENTS r TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Section page ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... ............................1 -1 1.1 General Purpose ............................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 ' 1.2 Environmental Procedures ............................................................... ............................... 1 -1 1.3 Project Sponsors and Contact Persons ............................................. ............................... 1 -4 1.4 Major Issues ..................................................................................... ............................... 14 1.5 Project Description Modificat ion ..................................................... ............................... 1 -5 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARIES .............................................................................. ............................2 -1 2.1 Executive Summary .......................................................................... ............................... 2 -1 2.2 Project Impact Summary .................................................................. ............................... 2 -2 2.3 Alternative Summary ........................................................................ ............................... 2 - 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................... : ............................................ 3 -1 3.1 Project Location ............................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.2 Project Characteristics ...................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 ' 3.3 Project Applicant/Property Owners ............................................... ............................... 3 -20 3.4 History of Project ........................................................................... ............................... 3 -20 3.5 Phasing ........................................................................................... ............................... 3 -21 3.6 Project Objectives .......................................................................... ............................... 3 -21 I 3.7 Proposed Actions and Lead, Responsible and Interested Agencies .............................. 3 -27 ' 4.0 REGIONAL, CITYWIDE AND LOCAL SETTING .................................. ............................4.1 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... ............................... 4 -1 4.2 Regional Setting .................................................................................. ............................4 -1 ' 4.3 Citywide Setting ............................................. ................................................................. 4 -1 4.4 Local Setting .................................................................................... ............................... 4 -1 4.5 Related Projects ................................................................................ ............................... 4 -2 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.1 Land Use Compatibility .................................................................. ............................... 5 -3 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare ........................................................... ............................... 5 -25 ' 5.3 Transportation / Circulation ............................................... ............................................ 5 -33 5.4 Air Quality ..................................................................................... ............................... 5 -88 5.5 Noise ............................................................................................ ............................... 5 -104 ' 5.6 Geology and Soils ......................................................................... ............................... 5 -121 5.7 Hydrology and Drainage ............................................................. ............................... 5 -134 5.8 Biological Resources .................................................................... ..............................5 -148 ' 5.9 Public Services and Utilities ....................................................... ............................... 5 -158 ' Pd1998\8N 162011E1RUABLE OFCON.DOC j HARVESTON EIR TA OF C ONTENTS ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page ' 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................... ............................6 -1 6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... ............................... 6 -1 ' 6.2 Land Use Alternative ........................................................................ ............................... 6 - 6.2.1 Alternative 1 —Business Park Land Use ............................. ............................... 6 -2 6.3 City -Wide Build -out Circulation Alternatives ................................... ............................6 -5 6.4 Community Park Design Alternatives ............................................ ............................... 6 -14 6.5 CEQA Alternatives ......................................................................... ............................... 6 -21 7.0 LONG -TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... ............................7 -1 ' 7.1 Growth Inducing Impacts ................................................................. ............................... 7 -1 8.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ............................................. ............................8 -1 , 9.0 REPORT PREPARATION RESOURCES ................................................. ............................9 -1 9.1 Organizations and Persons Consulted .............................................. ............................... 9 -1 ' 9.2 Report Preparation Staff ................................................................... ............................... 9 -2 9.3 Contribut ors ......................................................................................... ............................9 -2 9.4 References ........................................................................................ ............................... 9 -2 PA199WN 161010R \TABLE OMONT.DOC 11 HARVESTON EIR TABLE OF CO NTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ' (Continued) ' TECHNICAL APPENDICES A Public Participation and Review 1. Initial Study/NOP 1 2. Written Comments in Response to NOP and Utility Questionnaires B Traffic Study, July 19, 2000 — Wilbur Smith Associates C Air Quality Modeling, March 15, 2000 — EDAW, Inc. ' D Noise Impact Analysis, February 8, 2000 — Giroux and Associates El Geology Investigation, October 8, 1990 — Converse Consultants. E2 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions, February 20, 1998 — Converse Consultants. E3 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions, June 21, 1999, Converse Consultants. F Harveston Hydrology and Hydraulics Investigation, prepared May 1, 2000 and revised September 6, 2000 — Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. G Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination for Harveston Specific Plan ' Development, June 29, 1999 — Tom Dodson & Associates. G Focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Ephydryas editha quino) for Harveston Specific Plan Development, June 21, 1999 — Tom Dodson & Associates. 1 ' P1998\BNI6201�IRWABLE OMON .DOC ❑1 HARVESTON EIR TABL OF C LIST OF EXHIBITS ' Exhibit page 1 Regional Location Map ................................................................................. ............................... 3 -3 , 2 Local Vicinity / Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................... ............................... 3-4 3 USGS Map ......................................... . .................. . ...... . ...... .. .............. ... .... . ........... . ... .. ... .. ...... ....... 3 -5 4 Conceptual Land Use Plan ............................................................................ ............................... 3 -6 ' 5 Open Space and Recreation Pl an ................................................................. ............................... 3 -11 6 Circulation Plan ........................................................................................... ............................... 3 -12 6a Circulation Plan - Cherry Street Overcrossing/Interchange Alternative ..... ............................... 3 -13 7aRoadway Cross Sections ............................................................................ ............................... 3 -14 7bRoadway Cross Sections ............................................................................ ............................... 3 -15 7cRoadway Cross Sections ............................................................................ ............................... 3 -16 ' 7dRoadway Cross Sections ............................................................................ ............................... 3 -17 8 Existing Topography ....................................................................................... ...........................3 -18 9 Conceptual Grading Plan ............................................................................ ............................... 3-19 10 Development and Roadway Phasing Plan ................................................... ............................... 3 -22 10a Development and Roadway Phasing Plan - Cherry Street Overcrossing/Interchange Alter native ......................................................... ............................... 3 -23 11 Cumulative Developments ............................................................................... ............................4 -5 12 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................. ............................... 5 -5 13 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designat ions ............................................ ............................... 5 -6 14 Existing Zoning .......................................................................................... ............................... 5 -12 14aProposed Zoning .......................................................................................... ............................... 5 -13 15 Loop Road at Community Park ................................................................... ............................... 5 -16 16 Ynez Road at Service Commercial ............................................................... ............................... 5 -17 17 Site Photos Key Map ................................................................................... ............................... 5 -26 18 Site Photos (A, B, C) .................................................................................. ............................... 5 -27 , 19 Site Photos (D, E, F) .................................................................................... ............................... 5 -28 20 Site Photos (G, H, I, & J) ............................................................................. ............................... 5 -29 21 Existing Roadway Lane Characteristics ...................................................... ............................... 5 -34 ' 22 Existing Intersection Traffic Controls ......................................................... ............................... 5 -36 23 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................................. ............................... 5 -38 24 2002 AM Peak Total Traffic Volumes ........................................................ ............................... 5-46 25 2002 PM Peak Total Traffic Volumes ........................................................ ............................... 5-47 , 25A 2002 Saturday Midday Peak Total Traffic Volumes ................................... ............................... 548 26A Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements — Year 2002 Scenario .... ............................... 5 -52 26B Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements — Year 2002 Scenario .... ............................... 5 -53 26C Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements — Year 2002 Scenario .... ............................... 5 -54 27 Assumed 2005 Roadway Lane Characteristics with and without Project Scenario ................... 5 -57 28 2005 without Project Scenario Link Capacity Analysis .............................. ............................... 5 -59 29 2005 with Project Scenario Link Capacity Analysis ................................... ............................... 5 -65 P: 11999%NI620MMTABM OF OWMOC iv HARVESTON EIR TABL O CONTENT • LIST OF EXHIBITS (CONT'D) ' Exhibit Paee ' 30A Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements Year 2005 Scenario ........ ............................... 5 -66 30B Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements Year 2005 Scenario ........ ............................... 5 -67 30C Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements Year 2005 Scenario ........ ............................... 5 -68 30D Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements Year 2005 Scenario ........ ............................... 5 -69 30E Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements.Year 2005 Scenario ........ ............................... 5 -70 30F Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements Year 2005 Scenario ......................... :............ 5 -71 30G Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements Year 2005 Scenario ........ ............................... 5 -72 30H Summary of Needed Intersection Improvements Year 2005 Scenaro ........................................ 5 -73 ' 31 Noise / Land Use Compatibility Standards ............................................... ............................... 5 -106 32 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels ...................... ............................... 5 -109 33 Traffic Noise Contour Map ....................................................................... ............................... 5 -113 34 French Valley Airport Map ....................................................................... ............................... 5 -118 35 Geologic Map ........................................................................................... ............................... 5 -123 36 Regional Fault Map ................................................................................... ............................... 5 -124 ' 37 Existing Condition Hydrology Map .......................................................... ............................... 5 -136 38 Proposed Drainage Area ............................................................................ ............................... 5 -137 39 Proposed Drainage Plan ............................................................................ ............................... 5 -142 40 Stream Location and Vegetation Map ...................................................... ............................... 5 -150 41 Proposed Water Plan ................................................................................. ............................... 5 -173 42 Proposed Sewer Plan ................................................................................. ............................... 5 -174 43 Business Park Land Use Alternative ............................................................. ............................... 6 -3 ' 44 Existing Circulation Plan Link Capacity Analysis at City Buil dout ............. ............................... 6 -6 45 Cherry Street Overcrossing / Interchange Alternative .................................. ............................... 6 -7 46 Draft Proposed Circulation Plan Link Capacity Analysis at City Buildout ............................... 6 -10 ' 47 Date Street Overcrossing Scenario Link Capacity Analysis at City Buildout ........................... 6 -11 48 Cherry Street Overcrossing Scenario Link Capacity Analysis at City Buildout ........................ 6 -13 49 Original Community Park Plan ................................................................... ............................... 6 -16 ' 50 Community Park Alternatives ..................................................................... ............................... 6 -17 51 Community Park Alternatives ..................................................................... ............................... 6 -18 52 Community Park Alternatives ..................................................................... ............................... 6 -19 1 ' P 199WN16201TIRUARI OFCON DOC v HARVESTON EIR TABL O CONTEN LIST OF TABLES Table Pa" 1 Required EIR Sect ions .......................................... .............................................................................. 1 -2 2 Project Impact Summary ............................................................................... ............................... 2 -3 3 Statistical Summary ....................................................................................... ............................... 3 -7 ' 4 Development Phasing .................................................................................. ............................... 3 -24 5A Project Trip Generation — Weekday ....................................... ............................... ...........................5113 5B Project Trip Generation — Saturday ........................................ ............................... ...........:...............5114 , 6 2002 Intersection Levels of Service without and with Project Phase 1 ................ ...........................5 -49 7 Intersection Level of Service and Improvement Needs 2005 without Project Scenario .................5 -56 8 Intersection Level of Service and Improvement Needs 2005 with Project Buildout Scenario ....... 5 -61 ' 9 Analysis of Critical Intersection Existing Plus Project Buildout Scenario .......... ...........................5 -78 10 Intersection Level of Service and Improvement Needs Existing Plus Project Buildout Scenario.. 5-79 11 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................ ........................... : ............................. :............ 5 -90 , 12 Draft 1997 AQMP Target Attainment Dates ........................................................ ...........................5 -92 13 Number of Days Exceeding Air Quality Standards and Maximum Concentrations .......................5 -95 14 Construction emissions ........................................................... ............................... ...........................5 -98 , 15 Project 2005 Estimated Emissions (pounds / day) ........................................... ..............................5 -100 16 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ........................................................................... ..............................5 -111 17 Distance from Centerline to 65 dB CNEL Cont our .......................................... ..............................5 -112 18 Maximum Predicted Noise Level Increases (dBA CNEL) ............................... ..............................5 -115 19 Project perimeter Noise Exposure (dB CNEL @ 100' to Centerline and Distance to 65 dB CNEL from Centerline) ...................................................................... ..............................5 -115 ' 20 Sound Wall Height Needed to Achieve 65 dB CNEL ..................................... ..............................5 -116 21 Seismic Characteristics of Nearby Active Faults ............................................. ..............................5 -128 22 Hydraulic Capacity of Existing Facilities ......................................................... ..............................5 -135 23 Comparison of Tributary Areas — Before and After Development ................. ..............................5 -139 24 Harveston Hydrology Summary ........... .......................................................................................... 5 -140 25 Summary of Hydrology ..................................................................................... ..............................5 -141 26 Maximum Flow Rates per Street Right -of- Way ............................................... ..............................5 -144 , 27 Impacts to Existing Facilities at Interstate 15 ............................................. .................................... 5 -145 28 Summary of Jurisdictional Areas .... ................................................................................................ 5 -154 ' 29 Estimated Domestic Water Demands ............................................................... ..............................5 -167 30 Estimated Wastewater Flows ............................................................................ ..............................5 -168 31 Estimated Wastewater Flows by Reach ............................................................ ..............................5 -169 32 Estimated Wastewater Flows by Reach and EMWD Regional Sewer ............ ..............................5 -170 1 33. Alternative Summary Mat rix .... .......................................................................... 6 -25 PA199MSNI6201TIRUABL OFCONMDOC vi f "- HARVESTON EIR 1.0 IN TROD U CTION • 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL PURPOSE This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan project. Legislative actions for the implementation of the ' project include General Plan Amendment (Land Use and Circulation Elements), Specific Plan. Tentative Tract Maps, and Development Agreement. The Harveston Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 1,921 dwelling units (1,621 single family and 300 multi family rental units). The project will consist of 147.9 acres of low medium density residential (3 -5 du/acre), 80.1 acres of medium 1 density residential (5 -7 du/acre), 61.4 acres of medium 2 density residential (7 -13 du/acre), and 16.8 acres of high density residential (13 -20 du/acre). Other components of the project include a 112.4 -acre (gross site acre excluding Date Street and Ynez Road) service commercial area, a 16.1 -acre community park, a 13.8 -acre arroyo park, a 17.5 -acre lake /lake park facility, three mini parks (for a total of 1.5 acres), a 2.5 -acre paseo park, a 2.3 -acre village green, trails, paseos and bike lanes, and a 12.0 -acre elementary school site on an ' overall 552 -acre site. The Specific Plan also allows for a ±13 -acre mixed use district overlay. The ±13 -acre mixed use district is intended to function as the "Village Center" for the Specific Plan. The development concept for this area allows for a mix of the following uses adjacent to the lake /lake park: up to 20,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office uses; a daycare facility; a congregate care facility; a worship site; a private club house with fitness center ( ±15,000 square feet); and park, recreation, educational and residential uses. to The residential uses that may occur within the mixed use district would not be in addition to nor would they exceed the maximum 1.921 dwelling units referenced above. The "Village Center" uses are intended' for retailing and service uses of a community nature that attract people from the immediate ' neighborhoods. . The City of Temecula has the principal authority to approve the project and is the lead agency for preparation and certification of this EIR. The material contained in this EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. This EIR provides an overall analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan project. The issues discussed within this EIR are those which have been identified in the ' course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. ' 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), ' as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This report complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Temecula for implementation of CEQA. ' The CEQA Guidelines require that each EIR contains areas of description and analysis. Table 1 identifies areas required by CEQA and the corresponding sections in this EIR. ' P:"99M1620]�MU¢IN OD.DO 1-1 HARVESTON EIR 1.0 INTR This EIR analyzes and assesses the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and the cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the surrounding area. It identifies alternatives to the proposed project and discusses possible ways to reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental impacts. , The environmental procedures for analysis of the proposed project were initiated in April 1999 when the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Through the preparation of the Initial Study, the City ' determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment and that an EIR was necessary to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the potential development of the project site. The Initial Study is contained in Technical Appendix A of this EIR. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared for this EIR and circulated with the Initial Study for review by the State Office of Planning and Research and other agencies and interested parties on April 1; 1999. The NOP and the comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix A. TABLE 1 REQUIRED EIR SECTIONS Required Description and Analysis Section of EIR , 1. Summary (Section 15123 of Guidelines) Section 2.0 2. Description of Project (Section 15124 of Guidelines) Section 3.0 3. Description of Environmental Setting (Section 15125 of Sections 4.0 and 5.0 Guidelines) 4. Environmental Impact (Sections 15126 and 15143 of Guidelines) Section 5.0 a. Significant Environmental Effects b. Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided C. Mitigation Measures ' 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Action (Section 15126 of Section 6.0 Guidelines) 5. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes (Section 15126 Section 7.0 of Guidelines) , 7. Growth Inducing Impacts (Section 15126 of Guidelines) Section 7.0 Source: EDAW Inc. ' t PA1998WN 16201UR \LP1N 01).DCC 1 -2 ' HARVESTON EIR 1.0 IN TROD U CTION • This EIR, as a final document pursuant to Sections 15089 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, will serve as the environmental informational document for all public and private activities and undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of completion of the'project. The City of Temecula recognizes the fact that if new ' information should arise (i.e. through subsequent studies); an addendum pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines may be required. The City of Temecula as the decision - making body, will consider the information in this EIR in the course of their deliberations. ' Build out of the Harveston Specific Plan project in conjunction with other cumulative developments will result in the need for offsite roadway improvements in the year 2005. Based on the conclusions of the ' traffic impact analysis, build out of the Harveston project in conjunction with other cumulative developments will result in the need for offsite roadway improvements in the year 2005. These offsite improvements are identified as mitigation measures within section 5.3 of this EIR. The "final design" of ' the offsite roadway improvements will be determined at a later date subject to additional traffic analysis as the project builds out. Some of the improvements will require additional right -of -way and roadway widening that may occur to one or both sides of existing roadways. Because the "final design" of the ' improvements will be determined at a later date, it would be speculative to analyze the specific impact of each improvement. However, the majority of impacts that would result from these roadway improvements, which are required as mitigation measures, include the relocation of curb, sidewalk and parkway landscaping along existing roadways. Prior to the implementation of these offsite roadway ' improvements a determination will be made if additional CEQA analysis is necessary for the implementation of the improvements. It should be noted that several of the identified intersections would require the proposed improvements in 2005 regardless of the Harveston Specific Plan project buildout. CEQA Guidelines Section 21081.6 requires that a public agency adopt a reporting or monitoring program for adopted mitigation measures or conditions of the project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project is included in section 8.0 of this EIR. Technical Studies The following technical studies were prepared for the project and have been incorporated into the EIR: ' • Traffic Impact Study, July 19, 2000, revised October 10, 2000 - Wilbur Smith and Associates. • Air Quality Analysis, March 15, 2000 - EDAW ' • Noise Impact Analysis, February 8, 2000 - Giroux and Associates. • Geology Investigation, October 8, 1990 — Converse Consultants. • Summary of Geotechnical Conditions, February 20, 1999 — Converse Consultants. ' • Summary of Geotechnical Conditions, June 21, 1999, Converse Consultants. • Harveston Hydrology and Hydraulics Investigation, prepared May 1, 2000 and revised September 6, 2000 and October 23, 2000 — Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. ' • Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination for Harveston Specific Plan Development, June 29, 1999 — Tom Dodson & Associates. • Focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Ephydryas editha quino) for Harveston Specific Plan Development, June 21, 1999 — Tom Dodson & Associates. These technical studies are included in the Appendices of this EIR, which is bound separately from this document. ' PS1998 %N 16201\EUt \L0- INIROD.DOC 1 -3 1 HARVESTON EIR 1. INTRODUCTION 13 PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS The lead agency for preparation of this EIR is the City of Temecula. The project sponsor for this project is Lennar Communities. The environmental consultant to the City is EDAW, Inc. Preparers of and contributors ' to this report are listed in the Report Preparation Resources section of this EIR. Key contact persons are as follows: LEAD AGENCY: ' City of Temecula Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning Mr. Dave Hogan Senior Planner Ms. Patty Anders Associate Planner 1 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 ' (909) 694 -6400 PROJECT APPLICANT: Lennar Communities Mr. Bill Storm Project Director Lennar Communities 244800 Chrisanta Drive Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (949) 598 -8642 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT: EDAW, Inc. Ms. Jayna Morgan, Project Manager ' Ms. Alia Hokuki, Environmental Planner EDAW, Inc. 17875 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92614 ' (949) 660 -8044 1.4 MAJOR ISSUES , The major issues of the project identified in the Initial Study outline areas of possible environmental impact resulting from development of the project site. As a result of the Initial Study, this EIR addresses the following areas of potential environmental effect: • Land Use Compatibility • Aesthetics / Light and Glare 1 • Transportation / Circulation • Air Quality • Noise • Geology and Soils ' • Hydrology and Drainage • Biological Resources • Public Services and Utilities P5199WN 16201 TIRU, IR ROD.DOC 1-4 HARVESTON EIR 1.0 INTRODUCTION • 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION MODIFICATION Since the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated, the land use plan has undergone ' further refinements, and the land use designations and location of certain uses such as the school and the size of the community park have been modified, per requirements / needs of the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) and the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD). However, these ' modifications to the land use plan are considered minor and would not significantly change the analysis provided in the Initial Study. It should be noted that project Land Use Plan contained in this EIR document is more up to date than Attachment 2 of the April, 1999 Initial Study/NOP. ' Additionally, the technical studies contained within Appendices B through G of this EIR also contain Land Use Plans / Statistics, which have been.refined subsequent to the completion of the technical studies. All of the Land Use Plans / Statistical refinements are minor and do not change the conclusions or recommendations of the EIR technical studies. Appendices B through G contain correspondence, which confirm the above statements. ' P:\ 1998 \0N 16201\EMR 1041`T WDCC 1 -5 ' HARVESTON EIR 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARIES • 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARIES 2.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 This EIR addresses potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan. Legislative actions for the implementation of the project include a General Plan Amendment ' (Land Use Element), Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement. The proposed requests will allow for a maximum of 1,921 dwelling units. The project will consist of 147.9 acres of low medium density residential (3 -5 du/acre), 80.1 acres of medium 1 density residential (5 -7 du/acre), 61.4 acres of medium 2 density residential (7 -13 du/acre), and 16.8 acres of high density residential (13 -20 du /acre). Other components of the project include a 112.4 -acre service commercial area, a 16.1 -acre community park, a 13.8 -acre arroyo park, a 17.5 -acre lake /lake park facility, three mini parks (for a total of 1.5 acres), a 2.5 -acre paseo park, a 2.3 -acre village green, trails, paseos and bike lanes, and a 12.0 -acre ' elementary school site on an overall 552 -acre site. The Specific Plan also allows for a ±13 -acre mixed use district overlay. The ±13 -acre mixed use district is intended to function as the "Village Center" for the Specific Plan. The development concept for this area allows for a mix of the following uses adjacent to the lake /lake park: up to 20,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office uses; a daycare facility; a worship site; a private club house with fitness center ( ±15,000 square feet); and park, recreation, educational and residential uses. The residential uses that may occur within the mixed use district would not be in addition to nor would they exceed the maximum 1,921 dwelling units referenced above. The "Village Center" uses are intended for retailing and service uses of a community nature that attract people from the immediate neighborhoods. Access to the project site, from a regional perspective, is provided via Winchester Road (Highway 79 North) and Ynez Road from the I -15, both located near the southern boundary of the site, Margarita ' Road, which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. Additionally, in the future, Date Street will provide access to the site, as it is proposed to run along a portion of the northeastern boundary and through the site. Winchester Road runs near the southern edge of the project site and continues north ' adjacent to Chaparral High School. The circulation plan for the proposed project includes a network of arterial, secondary, collector, and local roadways. LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT Growth Inducing Impacts According to the CEQA Guidelines, this section is concerned with "... the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." It should not be assumed that growth in any area ' is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Long -term benefits include creation of a high quality, master- planned community that will offer a diverse and amenitiezed environment. The Harveston project will include service commercial and other retail uses (within the mixed use overlay zone) which will economically benefit the City of Temecula by offering a strong tax base for the City. Additionally, the proposed project includes many recreation opportunities, which will benefit the Harveston community residents as well as the residents of the City ' of Temecula. The City's park system also will be enhanced by the dedication and improvement of the proposed 16 -acre community park site. Short-term impacts of the development due to construction activities include increased noise, dust and vehicular emissions associated with construction vehicles. For a more detailed discussion of the level of ' PAI 998NBN 16201JEMV12 PROJ, SUM IM.DOC 2 -1 HARVESTON EIR 2. PR SU MMARIES , significance of environmental impacts, please refer to the appropriate section within this EIR. The immediate short-term benefit of the project would be construction related employment. 2.2 PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY t This Environmental Impact Report evaluates the potential project- specific and cumulative impacts regarding Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Traffic, Air Quality, Noise, Geology /Soils, Hydrology/Drainage, Biological Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. Significant impacts, the level of significance, and the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR are , summarized in the Project Impact Summary (Table 2), which begins on page 2 -3. 2.3 ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY Alternatives to the proposed project under consideration and evaluated in this EIR are listed below. The Alternative Section provides a descriptive analysis and evaluation of each alternative. In addition, the ' Alternatives Summary located in Section 6.0, displays a comparison of each alternative's potential environmental impact in comparison to the proposed project. • Land Use Alternative Y City -Wide Build -Out Circulation Alternatives • Community Park Alternatives • CEQA Alternatives ' P: \I"MN16201\EIRLA0.PROI.SIIMMAR .DOC 2 -2 ' U z � n E V ] P c c a — W E E � .a z z z � ° N G ,� C a t U a > u c a one u F ° ° o z E e a > u . ao o a o ro _ U 3 CL c c u u 'D u C W — 2 s > o ^° L E o o O U ° u u' a ' a o 0 � z z N F U W O a a o a� U cis a`v • �' i U C V ' F 4 N '.. � s � u � 3 c � u • m � G G i O y y y O to u W .c z E v c _ L z on c v c h> Q °p'c 3. c ,o E o. u u .a F L o> o u n qq to 0 4 E> E o ' a ° o n w u o u'o C O E u o a u G a a E U° a a u .° uu ' w u 7 3 u b u F n w a 3 >° E F a o a U o c a s a'o a z H a a u x E g 0 u u C F u 7 H I U _ z p a U = c = c z �ViN ut/= I CS U N u U v y � W " a • E '� a E 'h N u y V L G u w u — u L v a a Y.E F s y > W .o G L . "•o y ,� c W o 0 s _ o u s u o s C a u O o o a a h o r 0€ _�, °^ o o y h` n E v O a "u E v U a m u m E c U CZ > 00 > u` N a 7 N u o to N o iE to E r- Fj D a` c U E . c u o a u E v� uY o Es c .u? o E E y F E a u° o 0 0 b - .o " a s o E G a u c c . h• -N W ) ,U s. I F U O u u m O u O u E I a`v�i w`�nU c r w V y z c _ ❑ O W u O E C, p C cs h c� a E < A •`-' � r z P o f a a r c c s c > :s7 F a N V> G F.. rW.. >1 �„ d y ?) .E z u u u v) = d O a W '� � • N 1 1 • ' U d U U cL O a G t i LE 48 °moo rC4, rd c 'o h m �� 8 y V ti 3 °- - a o 3 c c v ►1 ° x T a' 'v ° W A a 0 Cl. N a y _' a cr c hrw c s a. E 5 ro L C u E a• N 3 0 �� = 0'3 Y a c° •o ro to C a c 'm 3 ,o c R ro r,c y o c H �. E ° � a 3 ma ° Via m o dy c uL o a ° n c _ > ' ... U 7 0 y G cE � " c c •o c c o :: r �, o. n. � o E � ° � � e ;o a� 3 y o ° n s ro � C . n m o" o v o° a u u< C7 o ° n > ° a a E o E" Q o`s E 1 J u E E ,o • N �s cv F U W � O 1 A U F C Z O O � _O C O U a u W � A O O F F w z � U c z yN � w Eo n u u w _ G�i7 u �C s r n C DA N 'D N cl .�- •'� V O h - V n O �. C E ° E V oa' W. ^ s.E ' , F 3 n u � u � � Tti �� E u •cy a� T v .= `a n .J O vi GS" E 3 n � 3 n� c n s u c u E y E C> E V U U Q Cc c = , Lxl 0 - 3 "J m T u �'o �., u n = o u - s —._s `� � .. 3 u u t a u n ca ... A . k Z r a .. c. v > 0 3 E s w- o z "''�' u•ov' p,�"�w�^�'F �o.� 3�� a �nc��c�'� > �a� E ny ^.�F�� u -ti °= c c s ° o .E o` — ° c s a ° o n y ° E u c E 4 c 2 n V> -- .-. C ` u� :D ti �• O L .O C E y O U � G •� �� 7� .D = E n .� S N O O c O.A V ?u .E N ¢�Qc��cn°- n _�� - fl��E N C °Qsu`cE�� y oc O N L ..7 . O= e y K M2 ti m .� . Y U a u F ' n �.. $ .. o . m .. '> c A R o a` u °�'.. u T .c �'C .� �c`� � Q.s E p N F' a e • D °U o aa�vo Uu°arFn F U 94 cn u � c s �U .E o It E - Z V n p x L 3 m. c a o w ctlti E F U z � W 3 Z u h C - c W m u u W 0 •c .7 0 - en C. E U >+ O U 'O r etl U > O L.. (� M E r FLU. �" 0. O O ocn a� � N Ecuo , _°c•E .. o�c CcHS y �y c a " i E �fx o�uEE'tiN ��.c� C-z.2W. =� c E..3 cC U U � -d E•_ U q ._, v L O O c u �U a�aro in �g. c°hys° u_ E� mE3c °a E� ° oa 0 ?M °c oE° � ' .o u .o v v m N v u N .E oo bA u a u y o u o , �s a o u aoA - L ' u 'o � =' y o u _ s u , °' ❑ s �, � a u u t Y .-1 ' u ca ac W u U w T O vi T G � U. u >' 7 U E N �tl . �: ,� 0 yc men a� aa° > 03 aT C ,,Z� I Q:o = �oF F u � E a z w 0. v amv o ? yr� a > a� E a� ti O'E c a c o o a o wL c s r u pp u u o c ° a E �.= v o E os .�. C .Q o c C cf •y O ,n O U C • U •: E u U> c> U L h G IX O 'C y 7 .-• O '- u E .n u •_ c c N_ c u ��7.0 c'� .. c o c a�'" u u E o O r •o c E'E `t' C u Wit. ra' y E �y ° E�- oEu!2 cm' aum a u o c 3 2- E O• E 2 o c E p N U c c c o - > y o U m ou.E N V d d'b q d = O y .'�' �' '= .0 O Q L U 2 L. L ' 'D a' > u nu u.'u yL � h EU eq " u aE= u vgw o G O L to o � >.� o w 7 oi�.w U C ""' it U s a o U p ° _ L C 'y o N L !'- u en o �o -a F .o u :° .T, u y " o y an ,>. c ?q w L u G • o `" E N v y CL c u �'� QL E 'ob °s E E^ 1 • • �+ U V G •Od F V acv' F F y 3 F p �v ti U E E ' W c 00 �E ° - Z a U v pp F- V u •E X X 30.0 c �U eq u h W N u u 5 u aH > o o W a E U a a`r u y CC w F o `o. U Z 0 .a w .a N V c ❑ Y� -O h z 'v -0 a a v o a,o 3 L cd O .`? C �Ey E��.2= � E; r� u�°Q � E H 0 0.0. " 0 Q b o m w °c Q 0 s 0 . a` v y v> c_ Q w c� u c g� E �� r� E 2 b s r a' > P. > ° N cq N i O cd G y �y N > , o a A .E 3 u a G cC tl A u r o 7 F •C N -. d U L Sj 'C U W p O '�-' C O v= ° U C C F O U t 3 p y 0 •° °° a F °'� ° x ^° a N o f Z „ ° W U > _ y axi v ^ r .. F c a o N 0.L E A 'rim F o V e a g s Q 0 °— �+ c° U ' o u u .. rn 0 � y u u fx c U w QoOE 0''3� u 000xs� �'� 00 0 ¢� °� ° °a a o a yv UUp.'dU �� OG:: U.n U.;�'Q �aA n E v v c a a * m • • • • Cw � � a F U !r] 0. U U � , a z a � �U w z 1 O g z a o a a � 'z a �U A z o ' O F Lj z F 1 v z a v ' z v w ' o Gr7 a N c u �w��F`WL a 'O N.�Tq NyF ° °^ o o E o S N N U V N U ai U N ,y cd OD —° q '� ' . N Q N N L C U O U �' h m y O .>'• M E C c a> m> c v u E 0 o c U c b m � 0• v E v 3 q a 3 c =o .5 cq d L`. L 'D ° O i a � v F U W a A F " Z U .. z o0 z F o a a a U � W � A p ' } F � F l O C w O F a a � U z H i U z G U W O W .a u u u L , W a`''F � � o a.�, ac °'• °^ w o � � � a ° ::b � a u E '� 3 y G .E o u �' > w c U w G y d N U O p H_ u ° E a G u °y' H h N t5 - n `�' V �, o u n. c? ° r a u y y r o o 'G = a E u '^ c o a' ' o a E u °> o E z .L n .° a % 3 0 o ?3 0`. ° a a o w u ° > ° L oo = m C ' Z E b d F w C. u G ti M G G w _ m L .` d u v u u y 3 o L a o F. ° o ° ' > V L > G E u G. > F G u E eo o� u u G c u ro n L v C H.rx °b o ° u °o o ? ' °y A yE a v a. ; - CU , u L r u o u A G E E c c o G c w u• ev 5 u G N ° 3 °° a° o a o w o F y E E O u W w S = u •v ti °° y c .� E no ` '�' ° o " o s o o Q F 0 - 0 O G' � p y �' •�' t. ' p . U "4 ? '� > > •fl O F a U n. F °� c ti .� W c E L E E 'Z: F a a u m • a 70 3 b m h [= a � F V w � a W V c J F d � G U 0 0 z F o < � a u U W � G O , O F • U z F U c u W O= W U a N w � "'� 3 •o � o C T u O w C u ❑ C o ; u O •oa i uL p a •a u c K y u 'D a •o o O '. o �, n. °_ °�° a o o u o °' t E c ncn s, h u u, u ro o u c s� ° c ° U E a u m 71 N u Q t N D to y . 7= C O� iC Z u w 0 v h T G [tr ti O h `� b00N U CL to �s a E t o E° c u o y o o u E o E u 3 s o° o o v °a o c c '° °' o N o N v u u m E s c e v W u n c> u °' °� a E o` ' c .o • E a a c c c O Q F u a n a 3 u op E^ a .� o ff u u g o E .N N E. U c o a c `a s F- U .� a Q N° c E to y 0 u c E 0 c - F U W p G v ' E_ U O u u Z ' z 0 0 o '= •b to 7qC 3 .n�U , p N w " f s u ° E � \ � $ � } �. \ » � j G/a fig ®�/ *) M® \77 �k2�\ƒ C' = § = 2)«k /2 \ ; . / —[ 0 )� \) {0 - C - - ® � » - 0 ` ^ o a . 0u � _ \ }\ / $( . � ] \\ \ 'o ]] / . 0 Q � �`� @ \%/ `® � ��\\ » \ } \ $i2j fE® =§0 ; =e agq EeE :o - _( \q\& !f fj2 ® g &f \ \/± __; ;y. ®% ;e \ ^ 2({«3 �� °e& »/§2%))\ . 3� ±]g §e m§ 3 =_ =�u&� } � u \ @ )� @ 3� t{ � fk. �§ $§ @ £/ k\ @ \� � � � C.1 G Z � u � � W Z N G V1 O L o ° a u � u y a E _E � a O E G wo U to bp > o E � •o � o � ,c �3E � R �� E �D � u s a G N C C W u v nu p � ^ a c u "o h o S n. _a c t o r •n E �� L to 0 3 0 2 a � G p n y d G O N U G ° ' m : N N ;D L U .G. cy 3 O O E n E u N G S: o O c y. _N to � c w �., u y u ca u c (y W G G> y u> G 0 t� G G m r- U E r4 y F Q Q u a ¢ u N m Ca = cq m G ti N E F U CG p a o fi c� y y y m u O r h t , tA o G to w 'O to u U G to 4 U Ou 'E u E — u a F •o u b y L ° H E o f o c 3 e d Tp (> ° =z u ° c M C u u q a U Z t U V C O a T m O � c c a � p u m - To l 2 0 N a o o . E to C. L O N N C 7 u 'C ' 7 E � 3 y0 u > 2-E N , a.a � o_ >° "0 bAc cE E b cz c r o c h ti c . c o �; .o o a ti s c -5 - 0 E-' 2s`' > o on.E , c M�« a u C N ._ C p a ti E v 0 0 3 .: c a u u = y s c E c b� '� M. O" 0 �Q F Ou p h vi 'D N 7�y TC .D -C N w . G O i G ` ?) •C 'C c� L. CS c O L E 'u � .0 c� D •� a O N O U� 7 p N u j ,� G O B � O '-.. C F w a o Y i3 N 'p •'� L e�tl N U �w.. Ci N N N N Q T N O w • O O = u , c G L •`_ > N O w j b O G U 5n c c'.� s c y y c 0 3 0 O �j c c " c .> s o a �°i a` o f a °u S a a o x o °° o U v O 3 ^� N F Q C6 F U O w , a O F , U G r. cz O O F � O Ca O U 1 O F � a F C � d U x C W U z U O W a L W > y O U C O N O Cp w °u � °c�'�n o c ° h` U u 0 t OU .v .N t J� GO a Y p U O. E ❑ y `o m ° N "' .� O 'O O b N u� O N.0 '9 v C u 3 o u an a u 5' `> u c o u OA r'n '4 ` bq u c 7 �•b .E u > 'J N O N nn '� y w o m N E c h �? : c c. ? . y t c w� o° o a u 0 3 9 0 0° ° s h '" o E4 E ° o s OA w •D G Op "" U 0.> " N C w •� 'C C a O D u y O G C . c w E C O . O...D U . 7 d N w w O L O vi 110 9 .� 2 P. 0 c o u oo u c onbS 6..0 0 4 O .G u M O O c oo . u W oao �a,c Oo scg� CL ° O v] C V N >� ' a F U W o F U C O Z - O F W L1 p O F � a W 4 F � c 0 , U x d W s U o G u u_ U � 4 b � w 2 on z v � _ V] O L O = � � U � u U p� a a E y c ° vi . �? �_ is 4 L O a u F O ou o .E o o a o �� a o ` 30 E to u c m o = a M '� a w c u cm,. € u s o o c O u 3 c g .= 3 'y o G o ca O° E .E w° c Y a E ° •o U ° u b o= k = o ° o y 'o a z =�.Q uo a @o�> 4 a" w w ° uutah• ° a .o ° a ° c o o c o o ." E o° E o ° s r u> o o U O a._ w ti N N O= N O C C q O to c d U CL c— • ,`°�, 'D E E c_ x v h u 3 E Q F GG _ ..1 • C a o` O - o .2 �`°. c a .2 i F Q al V a 4r = w v w O U U C4 y m= a h 7 a W n w w w a ' � r ao o; ° F V 0. U � > u � Ln u c u 'u E a`. cn U � b o , U N N Q u r. 1; ao c� c O' O E Z c a C vVi O 3 �, c 3 'ti F O Z a y �•' U a D a a := 9� Na0 NE F� o E o a > p CEO' a. a t L = a e F o^.° F c.� w U � c a L c v vi y 0 V L• w L N •- O v. G u m .�. O E p cf d c c D U n 9 G �,O n` U C M C — O❑ M CIO o •o _° 3 ' E O U V L c 0 00 r c cn E CL w- T •D 'C 'D ^ '+ V u V �'- d T i T c E c O u = ° o° v W � o y ` '_ ' ° a -O i = ��`, c •� � o. vi a`� ^n � Ci � Q :? O ` n 3 0 � 2 E° n '= ° u a Q "1 o -co d o� U d o l m a ' y u _ u _ V7 N F w O C > � j U ° U 0. cn � E F r � u1 L n U n c! S O 4 = L E E F E o ti n o A z au 'u b c to u c a z G U _ c L — � z 3 h u �WU �Z �Z LIA =�.u�. h ° ova -o u to to C X O uu 0 a o � � b '3 � a C w C '0 p j c1 > �7n to u CDU �y o`ncu 0 ��o cE h��c uo_o u 3oron ag 3 c> Dom - .Epp u o N U U m� y oa = a owu W �E�E� 0 uy= atenE°_?c ou ' nn a � M v F U O G c � U Ln U a` Ln F ? U i v � � o O � a � c cn A, �Q to D u o o' O � to Z F cG° U — U z � v 3 � U W � C 0. _ 'w y' Y -Q3 . n o u � O n m L n C O W .r to W u a y �, u •o n L .L a h a v cn Ki "rn a H CL n .� o — c O G. u¢ b U d o 3 C 0 h v� u w �' y N N b K L C rn �' N G. bD U E • O N .� C h C 'D O. C y N U G n G b L 0 N to D • t4 N N .� v .� h L D-0 > bnF C 'ND N O ^ (n c0 O b •p n y �«.. W� ti n O O n u '� u w= W .c � C— N to N C C VI J U G U b0 "O U ,a a E O E U E 'V bA `O ." C Y O E u F C L N 00 'D r = C . O u m u N o u a. L c L o L c �, o u y u an._ w L p L 8 D - a n o op n a a L cn o o n 3 1 L N M nn F U � � v a v� to c z O � G ti 9 rA to E w N L n= y v L � C L C C- C7 r O u a o Q . C7 E .E o 0 w U z � Q o E b c h u w �•= m n 9 c a u � u c s c >> c `� c u .° , s ��_ oo �v u `� 3�� c � c L o .� R � 4 . � 'o .� _ ou °' u O m ts`= Gq € 'moo v G. • 7 p W 0 G .0 " ,L G `- C c � G L a d T p pp G O w �� a o 0 0 y o° •a to F F °`° -' ' o _ c3 id O L 0 N > w C °> a y�Q'b4� v K G E q •O z C y N + C C 7 E O V c.�? o ° a 3 Ez E u'c o a�� TR•o o° `� a "aW � '- > " � • v a c `o � 0.0 'o a; :: '� :° � a c W a� �- y � E . c u .= h 'C y O N T 0 'C 7> F Q cL a L $COQ u a c m o v v a V p o Z o d 2 h E n. u 3 a F V w V U u` � � c CL m O u , u E o-E°, w•8B t� U CA '3 c W A O A a o w F u W U z a U V z ' o a a 72 C O u t. . L > z V E c O Q e o �'� ° t o °� 3 u u 3 c 3 0 0' y "s o y o 5�g -' c c °u ow° �'� W t su ° a ro 'E o f C hb a;Q c o - o ' o,y E tug ai r mw E a� c u � u° o❑ c E E 0 e u E u❑ L� e a o. °_ °� ie E c b c u '� Q s, > ,.E V E a F y E G Q = u o N> o v a U a 3 L u n g —� a c >, o n' ° .. o aci o- b y u c c a UG y E O D w E w eu e> o c a ° E € ,c •� u ,o ; 3 E 4 ¢ u uA`o y.E u o.a> $ c �.5 nn — e E c °-�°. N •� c U m a � 'ho �' a o a`�i uE . w T �. w Lq c y. c o ❑ n E a o f pa ° N° on u Q to o t n y O Q F c s ° c y° a a a o a t= o L u. >> h 'E F Q U°> ° u c Q o`n"D Q E as o° a U 3 E 5 u o o q U O � H U L D � F z O O U O w O a G o '' U� x 1 e E " U u u y > o a v E � n E w ❑ " a O u • E a a' � �Y r p •� E N U .d L �.' G .`� u C T c o o l u o o =' H o U aw Q o U o m •v u E o a E y u o u y o c E u� 3 a p `° c�€ L � € Q r a� •E c � _�"�� w c o U u o o c c o c o r to � z� c ' y .ruc > '� __ ro r o •° u .� c a c u p 3 E r z o3 0 2 u'u c a oLl o-°o c as c U E cn t o E s u y y ❑ a a. m e u u o •o u u �, > u o E . D ^: O V7= LYpL'O y c.0 v, Fj o 0 0 E u c E E �� 0 3 p o ai E ep o —� F e x a 0 W U uu n h L r u 'v -0 m a U 0.� •o o a u E F i U w r � r U a. v) O T L O N C ro u F '3 m E u oM u m Z c u.� y °. a rn O O o u � m U u r Z U� 0 .? ou y . c w c o mi c ro E t c E c z g u•n c w =� � � E o u c u • 3 0 c Q A F. E T 3 O a a`� 0 0° W'om ' CG a pL o Q,,3 c O y 'a r. 'n o .a •9 . C'> U 0 c �'L•0 G y 0 O C . U C aGL� �w aR x F o. cl.E E a1Fc4 r W _ c U L — Z n E CL to N O O id V C L . i p h U 4 E b O U w y E E= O U o ... 'O C w N cw L " 'U N c O N h b 040 c i a b a ,> o c s 3 E 'W a 4 o Q , :: b0 ca �O V z N ' E h 4 c D _V N o c= o a U c R Q. P z >. N N : ,O N .E m p rJ U 00 p V L U °A.5 c c > o m. n y h c ro ° E E n o> b 3 N ° 'oa1�L1 F U ed F U •3 ° ° � E a a S 75 x 4 ou O o � �� U o•o c o W U Z G U ' Z O U , 7 W .7 s E .w.c� u N �� 'J' E u N ctl N v c a.E E 0 w N c 'v u s 'o > N t L N s s y E a ecn� U n. ° N .on o w = a y U N N N2 E w O Y G • N� � � ._ N N Q. W E v E w •fl c c > ono c on ° c fl, CL u W . D u to fJ L N N • Y fd h V N N V y U U ' -0 p k Z c o 0 '3 a u ° 0° 3 a y C °° ° o f o U > a E o 3 E 3 c ° 3 = y °> E a N� L� N r � N O �. F w is .L •w E L t N O E 'U C F ` �. Y W o °, _ `' ° o , • �°_ � o c •N o y N :o c , v 'h v o I F'� G d 'O C N co u 0. 'D f1, 0. �. � � • • • d v i F U W , O W e, a ° a U � �U z Q V F 4 A W U O C W w e E. u U ^a @ � \ @ � ( � A= & ƒ { §) eme ;±k* ) / \§j\ =t )mg> .am> © =% /a2�aa giE:eky� aM;[]9 \% : aee® ®g' ° 2± k j)) \ \72 \ _$ }§u'a 0- & u } {\ \k� Ey) /E ej! §Q \`2 ^ l =•a2 \)b§){ \ \ � \ E6_)tgg22 § \ \ /\/ ). � \ \ 0 � )\ Zy �j 6; @ ` : )/ � 2a 2 � U z e z ' W 0 a ' T -S E CIL 'os '� n .❑ o o of u F y - u y n E > _� ° F o V �v a rF o E�Y� V V Oy u u t. ;: c — E ro u E. Ca u p EU one a, U u c u C) o DC �' a T -o ❑o �0�3=.9a ��?E ,caV t Q F M p N c q ' y a'9 u :D S C7 u y a E u ° Vs A- E - E E ° v E Y 3 N E O n cY N U N u u N O E N E n (� o r to u u ti c t a 0 c Q _ °' u -o t y E � o 5 c c `"' � z o > � - g °4 u u p 0 a F. 03 o> o y' y h aiUcLnH n cu c0 a ao°oiF c �u p DQ cli 0. v F U W a ° m 0 F z e U c. ., rn z W 1 z 0 a � zz , Q � W � a o W W C40 F U G U � 0. 1 1 U z U ' Z V 1 y W L o a ysa E 3. �w su 0 3 cc o v u O L 0 y O F O b= n €= E € n u g o E to y r M ti M to to c ti c . c = c Ln '00 E U € 'u . �. C c to P. a to ' s >, o r o c c 3 °° v g c d u= c o v b y u 3 .N m D •3 ci to ca g a •- c L c Q V L R C ro c a�i u u y u u N Fy y W 7 a. L) .t' 6., U 'D uwL O a O y F U W ' a a 1 a 1 F C O FU o z o_ d z w d W ' � U U' w F � U .a 1 w u n U a s U � � 7 U u . W y u .a � •3 ,en c � •� U � F' � a � 3 'D ' ti E a m ° c L E o > a� c s y ❑'� o ° n c E L° c '� h E U 2 E i> U t s on L - 7 �� T E � Q` ti U •d U O 4: . e �' H N 7 c ' •o U D E� v_ c$ u a c 3 a c E v �.5 � 6 F u> : F Q ° 'o c° p u c c h ,fi V M r. etl U vi ` •O T C. n' pn U C..� O C O O �^•' N w� Q p ... F T T c 00. .� .O • L .c ro 7 y U �- y� �' '� ttl O U N w O. A N u — a N N GO E cJ '"' fV u u cC o p o Q a Q 3 a u a F U w O ' c > 0 U � E 0 1 U Q Z s w y ca �U '3Db o G ° w U U _ G _ a U u y A U eJ •p U � p w, Y G vi rz N O N U° O r C U ' L u a 7-- E h C Y C w V= •� � U . y ° O 7 H U y -0 0 1 C4 z 3 0 oL kb a ° O N F 0. y � •= � `° � a o •o a � O c °� L N on :: •v � � :: g o � m w v c .a 00 ° d'E o c11 � u a cv C F = m w a s u .n v� ' a z F W � a u cn u U U ' ° a 0 F L O d a y O ' k' 3 '•o - o V u � y o�� a �E� C 0 Q L O 1 HARVESTON EIR 3.6 PRO DESCRIPTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site encompasses approximately 552 acres in the northwest section of the City of Temecula, ' in Riverside County, California. The site is currently identified as LM (Low Medium Residential); M (Medium Residential); H (High Residential); CC (Community Residential); OS (Open Space); SC (Service Commercial); NC (Neighborhood Commercial); BP (Business Park); and P (Public /Institutional) in the City of Temecula General Plan. ' The Specific Plan site is located adjacent to and east of Interstate 15 Freeway (I -15), northwest of Winchester Road between Margarita Road and I -15. Commercial, open space and low- medium ' residential uses bound the northern border of the site. Business park, commercial and public facility uses are located southwest of the site. Commercial uses are located southeast of the site. Medium residential, business park and commercial uses occur east of the site. The location of the project in relation to the 1 regional location is displayed in Exhibit 1. The project site in relation to the local vicinity is displayed in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 illustrates the site on a USGS topographical map. ' Access to the project site from a regional perspective is provided via I -15 Freeway from the Winchester Road interchange. Access to the project site from a local perspective is currently provided via Ynez Road or Margarita Road. Additionally, in the future, Date Street will provide access to the site as it is proposed to run along a portion of the north - eastern boundary and through the site. 3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ' The proposed Specific Plan project will allow for the development of the Harveston Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4, Conceptual Land Use Plan). The proposed Specific Plan is 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. ' The Harveston Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 1,921 dwelling units (1,621 single family and 300 multi family rental units). The project will consist of 147.9 acres of low medium density residential (3 -5 du/acre), 80.1 acres of medium 1 density residential (5 -7 du /acre), 61.4 acres of medium 2 density residential (7 -13 du/acre), and 16.8 acres of high density residential (13 -20 du/acre). Other components of the project include a 112.4 -acre service commercial area, a 16.1 -acre community park, a 13.8 -acre arroyo park, a 17.5 -acre lake /lake park facility, three mini parks (for a total of 1.5 acres), a 2.5 -acre paseo park, a 2.3 -acre village green, trails, paseos and bike lanes, and a 12.0 -acre elementary school site on an ' overall 552 -acre site. The Specific Plan also allows for a ±13 -acre mixed use district overlay. The ±13 -acre mixed use district ' is intended to function as the "Village Center" for the Specific Plan. The development concept for this area allows for a mix of the following uses adjacent to the lake /lake park: up to 20,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office uses; a daycare facility; a congregate care facility; a worship site; a private club house with fitness center ( ±15,000 square feet); and park, recreation, educational and residential uses. The residential uses that may occur within the mixed use district would not be in addition to nor would they exceed the maximum 1,921 dwelling units referenced above. The "Village Center" uses are intended ' for retailing and service uses of a community nature that attract people from the immediate neighborhood. ' P:\19 MN 16201EIRV.PPROI.DEMRIMON.DOC 3 -1 HARVESTON EIR 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTIO The plan proposes residential development to occur throughout the project site. Service commercial uses are to be developed within the western portion of the project site, and retail and mixed uses to occur in the Village Center (within the Mixed Use Overlay Zone). The proposed Specific Plan project has been designed with an overall density of 3.48 dwelling units per ' acre. Table 3, Statistical Summary, identifies acreage and densities associated with the proposed land uses. RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ' The Harveston Specific Plan proposes a variety of residential product types to be developed within the ' project area, ranging from high density, multi - family for rent units to large lot for -sale single - family detached homes (1,921 total dwelling units). The residential land use designations are the following: • Low - Medium Density Residential (3 to 5 DU /AC) • Medium 1 Density Residential (5 to 7 DU /AC) , • Medium 2 Density Residential (7 to 13 DU /AC) • High Density Residential (13 to 20 DU /AC) SERVICE COMMERCIAL ' The Harveston site will contain a service commercial center on approximately 112.4 acres. The commercial uses proposed would be service and community commercial uses for onsite and offsite residents. Commercial development will consist of a mixture of "big box" commercial, l office /professional uses, and support service uses that could serve the adjacent business park developments. It is anticipated that the commercial development will ultimately serve the needs of and ' provide employment opportunities to the Harveston community. This development will also assist in meeting the regional employment needs. The service commercial site is located in Planning Area 12, west of Ynez Road and north and south of Date Street. The Service Commercial designation is intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light , manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. Warehousing and light ' manufacturing may be permitted as supporting uses for a business that is consistent with the Service Commercial designation. Typical commercial uses include mid -rise office buildings, home improvements stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, auto service and repair. GREENBELT/PASEOSAND LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT ZONES ' The ro osed project will include a system of greenbelt/ paseos, roadway paseos, slopes, and Landscape P P P j Y g P YP P , Development Zones (LDZs). These paseos serve several functions; they link the community's neighborhoods to each other while providing alternative modes of travel (pedestrian, bicycle, etc.) to major destination points (schools, recreation facilities and commercial facilities) within the community. A paseo following the Loop Road will provide Harveston residents the opportunity to walk, jog, or bike ' around the entire community within a "park- like" setting. With the exception of the "Loop Road" paseo, the other large paseos (i.e., Arroyo Park and Pasco Park) generally follow drainage courses; however, the majority of off and on -site water will be carried through an underground system of pipes. Additionally, at broader locations within the paseos, recreation facilities may be planned. Some major roadways shown on the Specific Plan will also have greenbelt/paseos (parkways) expanded from the standard right -of- way. The greenbelt/paseo system is expected to provide a major aesthetic and unifying amenity for the entire project. P9I"MN 16201 EIR9.0- PROLDESCRIPnON.DOC 3 -2 1 1 Jr t veston ' EIR Lennar Communities ' 0 Yucaipa ' erside ' 6 60 2 ' 215 79 Palm Springs ' Hemet 74 ine 15 Palm Desert ' Lake Elsinore 79 74 1 PROJECT SITE Temecula 371 ' *San Clemente 1 76 P D: Oce side Escondido ' 78 ' P ay 1 ® Exhibit 1 I.T.S. November 2000 Regional Location Map � � o C :fin , •� S' � v, W 1.1 L ET - • N ^ ._. ,r` . � co t U �, F,l. ' • O avow VII W > U l U Q •' y1, it _ w W Q 2 L O W \ Z WO d." Z > D m` a s30HAA soanvo LL � W W a LU 7 � W � ! M e t U l U a Yi Z i. '! I� W V �� (W V 3 ho 4, 11 V J z •� � �� a 1 ,' F� I _ 1 , r �iK k W • J L . � ��1 `__ � — Ta i ' � � _ �_- ' � -�. 'jti� •° _ _ 8 ® o Ml •'H of F �- Ha rves on •,, EIR Lennar Communities Temecula`' ' O87 8 Hot $pang,`.. �J n 1169 �! � A PROJECT SITE asp �r We �F6sencir .0_4 P �� ReselO I'% 1 \\ c r i — ;r J i 7 i15 Source USGS Mumeta CaHomia 7.5 Quad Exhibit 3 ' � N.T.S November 2000 USGS Map F m ro ro ro O vW o n Q W c v E E 5 6 a o � F P"1 � u � Fy v •--� LL M y �n '-' �--1 O F o g v A U y � „1 Kuw 3u � Y I 2 U F N O O W Q Z w � � > m 0 ICJ � ♦♦ w p Y > N N O Q V) O J U w m O ; I I i Y • � (1 Y Q ti I Yo b NN ♦ O � 7 Q Z 1 W M N W Q Z 7 to . � Jb 30 � � • w 0 N O a O ' O Q J o- 6 • J w � O w 2 Z O O C5 �2 W ^ W �<a a a ui y OtlON Z3NA o o f " I O 6 . • W ♦ �i N J o > W y 0O Ki' N \♦ 2 • U • I �z 'I . S131 b1 SN31Nl � — ® o — m up= �z 0 a a U H W ' oo � no 0 h 00 .m-i M M 00 000 E d ' O A o M Z W A 01 , D D` 00 , D rV O n G1 DD v' m in W OR ' F.. mrim MWn V) 'D h0, oo C� O,�.ni It V a F W z m e � z u -� W a � W � m a NwC, Q� .. MOO on qoo 00 a 6�1 c�i w � � U Q � a ' Q h 7 C O a Q � O V c d V] E a W w ? a N H o � m m x a cn x _ z o �v_ U 0 W :J .� � • E a 'u o as � E _ E v o E S Q m E � � •o p u N b C C a b u y a 4 M C A Z a td w. 2 ocu fs r p� • � y .:`� t o 00 00 N `o `y`a y N r* N N M M R N 9 o r "-. �. CA c C7 r M v o u N 3 H E o. o -- N M 0 9 0 c W Y r y ° 2 c = C � d� •� V U v 'O W L . y O O � y NL N„ E �� -. d Ve C •C N 'J�' � yU � Z 0�.. > U e E W F"�eom nQ > aui ouo O` p p,U cn t H Uz3F a F[% F> V Qi �7 E CL o 0.. •o a 0 >,.2 L 0f O W i d E . c w Y x � p L•Aa z E' p w o - m n - _ t o o O j x o Q , 7W9V]�Ozv� A,z _ »c HARVESTON EIR 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' MIXED-USE OVERLAY The proposed plan allows for a 13 -acre mixed -use zone overlaying area designated as the "Village Center." The development concept for this area allows for a mix of potential uses such as, retail, restaurant, office, daycare, worship, and private clubhouse (Village Club) with fitness center. Additional uses such as recreation, education, and residential will be provided adjacent to or within the Village Center. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail is permitted in this zone along with future office uses and a 15,000 square foot Village Club, residential, recreation and educational uses. SCHOOL ' Twelve (12) acres will be set aside for an elementary school site. The elementary school site is located in Planning Area 4, adjacent to the Mixed -Use Overlay zone. The community Loop Road will provide t access to the school with an additional access off Margarita Road. The proposal for the elementary school has undergone a separate CEQA process, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District has completed an Initial Study for the proposal. The Initial Study has ' been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the Initial Study, it was concluded that the proposed elementary school will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared and approved by the Temecula Valley ' Unified School District on December 7, 1999. Grading for the school site began in March 2000. PARKS A 16.I -acre community park is planned in Planning Area 1 to serve residents of Harveston as well as the City of Temecula. This park would include recreational facilities and related uses, such as lighted sports fields (baseball, softball, and soccer), outdoor barbecue, picnic areas, a tot lot, a concession stand, an equipment storage building, public restrooms, and required parking facilities. The original Conceptual Community Park Plan is included as Exhibit 49 within Section 6.4 of this EIR document. Subsequent to ' review of the initial plan by TCSD, several design alternatives (Exhibits 50 -52) were prepared and have been included in Section 6.4. Three mini parks are planned in Planning Areas 1 and 7. These mini parks will cater to the needs of the Harveston neighborhoods and would include open turf play area, tot lots, benches, and shade structures. In addition, it is anticipated that further recreational facilities may occur ' within the high- density residential area. The proposed plan also includes three linear type parks: 1) Arroyo Park is located in Planning Area 9 and includes a looped walking trail and possible public parking; 2) Pasco Park also includes trails, picnic areas, and possible parking lots. The Pasco Park connects the Community Park to the Lake Park; and 3) the Lake Park, which provides a variety of recreational opportunities for Harveston as well as the residents of the City of Temecula. (Please refer to Exhibit 5, Open Space and Recreation Plan). Class H bike trails will be provided (along all circulation ' plan roadways, the project entry roads, the proposed Loop Road, Date Street, Margarita Road and other roadways). ' ROADS Major roadways will be implemented in conjunction with the proposed project. The City of Temecula Circulation Element, as proposed, will adequately serve future traffic volumes for both the site and ' region. On -site traffic will be handled by a hierarchical roadway system consisting of arterial, major, collector and local roadways. A Loop Collector Roadway will provide interior traffic to higher traffic �j carrying major and arterial roadways. (Please refer to Exhibits 6, Circulation Plan and 7a -7d, Roadway Cross - Sections). Additionally, Exhibit 6a provides a depiction of the Circulation Plan with a future P:\1"WN16201TMI .0.PRUT)MCR=0N.DOC 3 -9 HARVESTON EIR 3.0 PRO DESCRIPTION Cherry Street Overcrossing/Interchange. This alternative is consistent with City of Temecula's Draft , Circulation Element and City of Murrieta's Circulation Element. A detailed analysis of this alternative is included in Section 6.3 City -wide Circulation Buildout Alternatives. This alternative will alter the configuration of Ynez Road, and as shown on Exhibit 6a would require the acquisition of two out- parcels to implement the Ynez Road configuration. GRADING PLAN ' The Harveston Specific Plan grading is tailored to the proposed project site. The proposed grading plan will conform to the existing natural landforms where possible in order to create a development where , different residential, commercial and recreational areas are distinguished and separated by topographic features (please refer to Exhibits 8, Existing Topography and 9, Conceptual Grading Plan). Additional conditions which dictate the proposed grading plan will include: 1) existing perimeter conditions, 2) existing street grades, 3) ability to gravity sewer, and 4) no diversion of storm flows. According to an earthwork quantity take -off conducted by the project engineer, the project site will balance onsite and will not require import of export of earth materials. The proposed lake in Planning Area 3 may require the import of approximately 12,000 cubic yards of clay material to construct the lake "liner bottom." 1 t PA1998%N 16201WR�.0PROLDMCRI QN.DOC 3 -10 �n C m v O vA a u . o v v .°a 0' id W e o t u ._ .; v C u x u y C v w � I ■ - ' w. I j' 'fl [-, v ,� m "o _ Yrr•rr.r.•ryy�. �a ]¢z q r �m a H � O W Q z w (r O (n H O LD Q z O= O m 7 t O o U � Y N � • � U H I h Y • N (r • a D od W Z �. _ O • bl1b b9b yw ¢ N q O a. O Qz a W • O n m • M O 2 V H 2 ° C j • O W Q Z O I rn 7 Y oL6r J a . Z • O Q Z �` O Q Z �• U■ �� \ � N M W W • I UU' Q U Q 2 ~• GV011 Z3NA o 5 0 ^ • � �• J O O 2 •W • •� N O w • o 70 ft 0 N 1 • /� S`_1Sy31N`•`�.. C OR U:;v U C: O 0 0 r� O Cq W U C v W t;o V 3 T C C c V U p Off •"+ 'O � v V O. a rW B v v 7 v v U zz a V W "O p; c+: y y GJ1 v C 1 Q _ d O O O O O O O O O O O _ m 3 (n N f+] U F- O w p °� � v �i � p a 6• w (A � 0 E LLo y m ° to Z ^� O` � O �a • ° E % =moo Soo *00 stir I O Ct��" � a' • •� ♦ I v 1 ^� N Vl O � 1 �1jb��2�dW �nim �¢Z Lo m 0 1 I O +. J ♦ b Y � O = ¢ Z /. ja?$ /. Ej U I N W W U U U U U 000000000 s o ...... O • �� J atlOtl 23NA ''s ue• \m U N O � w ¢ b °•• N N Sl31V •��• mom m a 0 OP4 O� N� 'V� ^Va [ v �U •'-� c X5.3 �� v 5 �a. �+ w gg gg gg Q o Q 0 PCI U W LJ a v w ° So U w '� �� C v v � bA hl"1 p o .v5 q q 'Db c C FLI v im , •'7 a.� 0 £ w W ,n v a v a y 1 • • W G ° • _ a+ • o b.0 F e 8 S a a e S s 8 p U sa U! Cd y � O F Y z C j ~ ry N ry O OU— W Q Z L 0, O CIS _ , o ��az I o m= E o. =�o N I N Y 2Ur' o En `5 a. pm0 ,. � •• m m O t. • O�Qd N < r 1 b1 /y bJHbW O z p m D N W U F W <Z n m O N 1 I � n 0 � f S 0 o n o () Q U O P a d' N ' r Q O O W m p o f I •••••••• t <U a as _• n +/ �• I • ••• � off•••• o ^ , 1 ", � P d ' 00 • ••• \a W v CIO • i Y U • �i fj -S o WJ U U O N • J � l? G v o .�- .�•. oo C "' S131V1SN31N`•��,_. p v •�, v)— J o U W G w 'O v mom m m m m �� 1 Harveston EIR 1 Lennar Communities Raised Landscape Median 14 Metlmn I 1 5' 1, 7' 10' 12' 12' 14' C C 14' 12' 12' 10' 7' S' Walk 'Parkway Class II Class II parkway Walk Bike Lane Bike Lane 134' 1 R/W R/W �1 Urban Arterial ' Date Street 1 i 1 10' Turn 10' 10' 8' 5' 12' Lane 12' 5' 8' 10' 10' Village Planter . Parallel 1 Drive Aisle Drive Aisle 1 Parallel Planter Village Center Walk Parking Class If 'L Class II parking B Center Walk Bike I Bike Lane I Lane 1 R/W 61' R/W n Collector 1 Village Center Road 1 r Raised Landscape Median 5 ' 7 ' 10' 12' 14' 14• Median 14' 12' 10' 7' 5' 1 Walk Parkway Class II Class II Parkway Walk 12' Bike Lane Bike Lane 12' 1 110' R W �1 Arterial R/W v 1 Ynez Road Exhibit 7a November 2000 Roadway Cross Sections corveu�rwe 1 Raised Landscape Median H ar 3 vesEon EIR Lennar Communities s' r 10' 1 2' 1 a' 7' ' Walk Parkway Class II Bike Lane 55' l� R/W R/W ' 4 Arterial (Half R/W) Margarita Road ' Raised Landscape Median Village Green - width varies 14' minimum at Margarita Road 1 14' Median I ' 5 7' 1 5' 12' 14' 7' 7' 14' 12' 5' 7' 5' Walk Parkway Class II y Class II Parkway Walk Bike Lane j Bike Lane R/W 43 R/W R/W 43' R/W �tEntry Collector Major Entry at Margarita Road without Parking Raised Landscape Median Village Green -width varies 14' minimum at Margarita Road 5' 7' 8' 5' 12' 14' Village 14' 12' 5' 8' 7' 5' Walk Parkway Parking B Green B. Class II Parking Parkway Walk Class II Bike Lane Bike Lane R/W 51.6" WIN R/W 51.6" R/W �l Entry Collector U Major Entry at Margarita Road with Parking ,• Exhibit 7b Q12� November 2000 Roadway Cross Sections LONS ULTIN(! i iTt.d& H •;lags: , ar4ston EIR 1 Lennar Communities Raised Landscape Median 1 1 5' 7' 5' 12' 14' 14' Median 14' 12' 5' 7' 5' Walk Parkway Class It Class II Parkway Walk Bike Lane I Bike Lane 1 R/W 100' R/W 1 / Entry Collector Minor Entry at Date Street 1 i 5' 7' 5' 12' 12' 12' 12' S' 7' S' Walk Parkway Class II r Class II Parkway Walk Bike Lane I Bike Lane 1 R/W 82' R/W 1 n Entry Collector Minor Entry at Margarita Road 1 F Mean airing Paseo 1 10 Turn ' 1 , 5' S' 12' Lane 12' S' Min. 8' Walk Class II 1 Drive Aisle I Drive Aisle Class II 1 Bike Lane r Bike Lane Pay 17' R/W 66' R 7 w 1 n Residential Collector • Loop Road 1 Exhibit 7c November 2000 Roadway Cross Sections 1 corvauvirvc 1 A: Harveston EIR Lennar Communities 1 I 4' s' 20' 20' 1 g' 4' Walk Parkway l Parkway Walk RM 66' R/W n Residential Entry Residential Entry from Loop Road I 1 I 4 6 18' 18' 6' 4' Walk Parkway I Parkway Walk R/W 56' R/W n Residential Local " Internal Neighborhood Street 1 I I 4' 7' 28' 28' 7' 4' Walk Parkway I Park%ayl Walk 11' 56' 11' RNJ 78 R/W �1 Industrial Collector "Service Commercial Exhibit 7d F BF November 2000 Roadway Cross Sections CON9Y TING 1 w - 51 ►� t o il W. 0 FIRM FA �J R:1�1r �r I� G� C Y � C � W .0 m i A Fi W C,1 x � � = U � O � U 'a a I ' a 1\ 1 / \ \ I 1 1 I ✓ \ 1 _W 1 1 I I 1 � W U 6 Q N a � , I I � I 0 v A b I v 0 - m s s ® e mom ■� m m m o m ■ 4 km M HARVESTON EIR 3.0 PRO DESCRIPTION LANDSCAPING PLAN I The Harveston Specific Plan includes detailed landscape design and concepts that will play an important role in maintaining project design themes. Landscaping within the project site will be consistent with community design elements (i.e., architecture, walls /fences, and entry monumentation) in the mixed -use Village Center area, service commercial, and recreation areas. Individual neighborhoods and residential development enclaves will also be distinguished by varied planting themes. Entry monumentation will provide initial definition for the site, and will be viewed when approaching the site from Margarita Road and Date Street. Monumentation will be developed in a hierarchical format ' from major community entries, a minor community entry to service commercial / residential / neighborhood entries. This will provide initial identification for each residential planning area. The project frontage along Interstate 15 will be treated with a 50' scenic highway landscape setback. This will buffer the site from highway traffic and enhance the project's visual image from Interstate 15. In addition, a channel buffer will be installed along Santa Gertrudis Creek. ' Additionally, landscaping will be used to identify the hierarchy of the street system, from major access roads to interior residential streets, creating definite landscaped corridors. This will be accomplished through consideration of landscape, materials, size, color, and character. Plant materials (included in the ' plant palette) utilized along the roadways and throughout the community will adapt well to the environment of the City of Temecula. 3.3 PROJECT APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS The majority of the 552 -acre project site is owned by Lennar Communities. Lennar Communities offices are located at 24800 Chrisanta Drive, Mission Viejo, California 92691. The Winchester Hills, LLC. owns approximately 112.4 acres of the project site designated service commercial, adjacent to the I -15. The Specific Plan applicant is also Lennar Communities. The applicant contact for Lennar Homes is Mr. Bill Storm, Project Director. 3.4 HISTORY OF PROJECT ' On November 9, 1993, the City of Temecula adopted the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The Land Use Plan designates the site as LM (Low Medium Residential); M (Medium Residential); H (High Residential); CC (Community Commercial); OS (Open Space); SC (Service Commercial); NC ' (Neighborhood Commercial); BP (Business Park); and P (Public/Institutional Facilities). The project site is currently vacant, but it was once used as pasture. In and around the site, there are several foundations from razed buildings, and an abandoned horse track associated with a previous ranch. 1 The 552 -acre site also has been evaluated in previous planning documents including: • City of Temecula General Plan EIR, prepared by the Planning Center, dated July 2, 1993. • Winchester Hills Specific Plan/EIR, prepared by T &B Planning Consultants, Inc., dated February 1, 1993. 1 t PO199MN16 20IIEIRO.0- PROl.DMCRIPT10N.DOC 3 -20 1 HARVESTON EIR 3.0 PRO DESCRIPTION 3.5 PHASING 4 ' It is expected that the proposed project will be phased over a 3- to 10 -year period, in response to market demands and according to the logical and orderly extension of roadways, public utilities and infrastructure. Please refer to Exhibit 10, Development and Roadway Phasing Plan and Table 4 Development Phasing. Additionally, please refer to Exhibit 10a, which provides a depiction of the Phasing Plan with a future Cherry Street Overcrossing/Interchange. The elementary school will be completed in the first part of Phase I and is currently under construction. The lake/lake park, the village green, residential developments in Planning Areas 3 (partially), 4 (partially), 6, and 7 (partially) will be completed in the later part of Phase I of the project. Phase 2 of the development will complete the remainder of Planning Areas 4 and 7 and portions of Planning Areas 1 and 3; this phase will also complete Planning Area 5. The residential development in Planning Areas 2 and 8 and,remainder of , Planning Areas 1 and 3 will be completed in Phase 3. along with the Paseo Park. During the last phase of development, Phase 4, residential developments in Planning Areas 9, 10, and 11 will be constructed. The timing of the community park is addressed in Mitigation Measure l I in Section 5.9 of the EIR. The phasing of the service commercial area in Planning Area 12 is consistent with the assumptions in the , traffic study, dated July 19, 2000. Although the phasing plan in the traffic study also includes a phase 5 within planning Area 12, please note that both phase 4 and phase 5 of Planning Area 12 are assumed to be buildout by 2005. Therefore, buildout of the service commercial has been depicted on Exhibit 10 as t occurring in 4 phases. 3.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES A statement of objectives is required by Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The 1 objectives of the applicant and the City of Temecula are identified through the following: APPLICANT • Promote quality development consistent with goals and policies of City of Temecula General Plan. • Develop a plan that is economically feasible and capable of being implemented based on existing and anticipated future economic conditions such that no economic burden to the City would occur. • Provide for comprehensive planning that assures the orderly development of the site in relation to the surrounding community. • Assure appropriate phasing and financing for community facilities including circulation ' improvements, domestic water, urban runoff and flood control facilities, sewage disposal facilities, educational facilities and parks. • Establish development regulations permitting a variety of residential products. • Dedicate a park site consistent with the City's Land Use Element, which designates a portion of the site OS -P (Open Space - Park). CITY OF TEMECULA • Implement the Temecula General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies and development standards. • Implement the goals of the City of Temecula General Plan. • Create a development compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area. ' • Promote the development of residential land uses that convey a high quality visual image and character. Po199MN 16201 EIRUWROJ=CRIMON. DOC 3 -21 ' O C V cn c b �. 5 0 Dui cd y V) H o V)V V) V) V) O' N y O v a �' Z O A �-I M D U n CL� y Cl v u u � v ca W � u v � Cd - rl a Cd W r' V ti '.boa viiav�a� ___ - -- \ Q w 2 0i 2 N O W CD� > 032 ¢ W N J O � z O O U �` II c O O O I� � =t0� i 1 � I 1 O i o H > >, Q Q U \ O tl d U) 5 O M M 0 O� rn7 Q W Mm r 3 � o O o N O N Q fA ML) kk O .N. N M4 0 u to uQ .n -- b- o I to I I 'b4 x s s p, w y p o u o 0Q O �y N N U w fi v 0 o W v u I 9 o � I I 'ai N m 00 U 5 u y cq u 5 u u C] 7 • z w u 0 on u a5 5 r a F zN G.p O s ® e o v y .'p u LaI" N ti Cd O Itj W .--I C ,-� N M b'O .LI 'O WU O .b 0 a W U A v w W w w C/) i C/) i C/) i C/3 i o�� ou °u� z c a a "curia ,n No 0 4.. U 7-I f V / ♦ V Q — � p N !�Iy1 P4 z Cd ' v v ysaz .4 a m V � �♦ a � o 'O h' iy /' v F 7W N Z 1 _ Y � Z I M � N (n I =QZ M = 0 I OW" ) / Om`N-'m , O i O a ZYQ I O =a I r Fn (p (C .� N O n ,� U �/ N N � I a my a� A u L o aro DA v v.Sunu .9oo >r, xg r n w ,d .� A ^O p c O p v p C) A O v N OO.� 1 - 0 0 -' N O �w F u� w w CO ,n ,,,, U G, y L. u p si b p� a� o uU u �N tui i �o�w.5 �wv «va vA yo u oi olv�a4F� c 7-. u A O S R 0 r �r r r r �. �■ r r rr r r r rr it z �o a ' a v A o L N z ** o z z 2 o y rj G 0 3 0 w ai f � ro F � U N N L N r� 3t O F cs s ► C 0 a N o M Q Z N U z 3 � d � A a E y ea --, W u Q c e F d a Q x z 0 F a. a , W � F 3 zz� ooz�Mz� o z r M Ca 3 on W if iF N � zO aLi C ) C ) o�� o nM °°N v Z a i!1 Ul U V V N G N N V W 0. F o Q s > Q 1�1 z •--� M `7 Vl � r N •--� N N M OO N � z < i Cn o E N :0 ctl O 'C U V N v) E E E �= N'ccO �G j Q t7 N •--� U G N E O E ai a ° a ° ° a a Sri K W u z o , o w a Q t z o a U W A H 3 a a a z Z M Z 2 z 2 o W M = o vi ' CID o y V V F F G: O� v1V in O O V h rq ry in E . U Q ti V k cq to 7 � W ¢ � W � cr7 v' O � W C N t ao c d N G L F a CL N E Z E C E 1 7 °` cuuF F = '= O E .2 v )Ln 0002 * N o W � u z o o F a r a r x d I HARVESTON EIR 3.0 PROJ DE • Provide for necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate the demands of ne w and ' existing development. • Balance projected costs and revenues. • Balance the City's long -term needs for residential property. • Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development, and that timing and funding of improvements is closely correlated with development phasing. 3.7 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND INTERESTED AGENCIES , The following section describes discretionary actions that are currently proposed for the subject property. Approval of these actions is granted by the Lead Agency (City of Temecula). , CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION • Recommend Approval of the Environmental Impact Report • Recommend Approval of General Plan Amendment • Recommend Approval of Harveston Specific Plan • Recommend Approval of Harveston Development Agreement ' • Approval of subsequent development application including tentative maps, conditional use permits, and development plans CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL • Certification of the Environmental Impact Report • Approval of General Plan Amendment (Land Use Element) • Approval of Harveston Specific Plan • Approval of Harveston Development Agreement • Approval of final maps • On appeal, review of subsequent development applications including subdivision, conditional use permits and development plans and approvals by the Planning Commission LEAD AGENCY In conformance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Temecula is the Lead Agency for the project. The Lead Agency is defined as the "public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project." This EIR will be used by the City of Temecula, as the Lead Agency, in the review and consideration of the proposed project. The Lead Agency Contact is: Ms. Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning Mr. Dave Hogan Senior Planner Ms. Patty Anders Associate Planner 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 ' Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 (909) 694 -6400 PM99MN16201URU.0 PROJ- DUCRIPI'ION.DOC 3 - 27 1 i HARVESTON EIR 3.0 PR DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBLE/INTERESTED AGENCIES Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with development of the proposed project site. This EIR is also intended to provide environmental information to a number of agencies, which may be involved in serving the project, or may otherwise have an interest in the development's environmental effects. These responsible and/or interested agencies include, but are not limited to, the following: Agencies: Interest /Approval: 1. State Department of Fish and Game • Impacts on biological resources & 1603 agreement r 2. Army Corps of Engineers • Impact on biological resources and 404 Nationwide Permit ' 3. Regional Water Quality Control Board • Impacts related to water quality and 401 certification 4. Metropolitan Water District • Potential impacts upon water supplies 5. Eastern Municipal Water District • Potential impacts upon water supplies • Approval of sewer plans ' 6. Rancho California Water District • Potential impacts upon water supplies • Approval of water service plans 7. Riverside Transit Agency • Accessibility to existing bus stops • Provision of new transit service 8. US Fish and Wildlife Service • Impacts on biological resources 9. Temecula Valley Unified School District • Impacts on existing K -12 classrooms ' • Approval of school site acquisition • Approval of school agreement ' 10. Riverside County Flood Control District • Potential impacts related to flooding • Approval offlood control and drainage plans 11. French Valley Airport • Proximity to French Valley Airport and potential noise impacts i ' PA 1998 %N16201E1R00- PROLDESCRIMON.DOC 3 -28 4.0 REGIONAL, CITIWIDE, HARVESTON EIR AND LOCAL SETTING ' 4.0 REGIONAL, CITYWIDE, AND LOCAL SETTING 4.1 INTRODUCTION The following section discusses the project area from regional, citywide and local perspectives. The project site itself is also discussed. The setting section has been divided into these three subsections to indicate and discuss the three distinct areas in which the project may affect or be affected by existing and proposed development. The study areas discussed in this section were designated for the purpose of evaluating project impacts only and do not necessarily represent an adopted study area of the City of Temecula. 1 4.2 REGIONAL SETTING ' The Temecula Valley is centrally located in southwest Riverside County. It is surrounded by the eastern portion of Orange County to the west and the northern portion of San Diego County to the south. It is located 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean, 85 miles from Los Angeles, 50 miles from the Palm Desert area, 45 miles from Orange County and 30 miles from San Diego County. The regional location is displayed in Exhibit 1 within the Project Description section of this EIR. The major arterial adjacent to the site from a regional perspective is the Interstate 15 Freeway (1-15), located west of the project site. From I -15, direct access to the project site is provided by Winchester Road (Highway 79 North) and Ynez Road, both located near the southern boundary of the site, and Margarita Road, which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. Additionally, in the future, Date Street will provide access to the site as it is proposed by the City's existing Circulation Element to run along a portion of the north - eastem boundary and through the site. 1 Regional facilities include the French Valley Airport, located approximately 2 miles from the site; the Santa Gertrudis Channel, located immediately to the southwest boundary of the project site; and the Promenade Mall, located to the south of the project site, across from Winchester Road. t 4.3 CITYWIDE SETTING ' From a citywide perspective, the project is located within the northern portion of the City of Temecula. Immediately north of Temecula is the City of Murrieta, and the remainder of the City of Temecula is surrounded by unincorporated Riverside County. Lake Elsinore, Fallbrook, Hemet, Moreno Valley, and Riverside are in close proximity to the City of Temecula. 4.4 LOCAL SETTING From a local perspective, the project site is located northwest of Winchester Road and northeast of I -15. ' The site's local vicinity is shown on Exhibit 2 within the Project Description section of this EIR. It is surrounded by I -15 to the west and Margarita Road to the east and southeast. The future extentions of Date Street and Ynez Road intercept the site. Winchester Highlands Business Park is located to the south of the project site. ' P. \1990\BN 1620 1\ MI .O -R GIONAL.DOC 4 -1 4.0 REGIONAL, CITIWIDE, HARVESTON EIR AND LOCAL SETTING The project site encompasses 552 acres and is vacant and undeveloped. The project site is characterized r by gently rolling alluvial plains to moderate slopes within the northern one -third comer of the property. Several dry washes meander through the site, draining the site to the southwest and south. Drainage is , intercepted along the Santa Gertmdis Channel to the southeast of the project site. 4.5 RELATED PROJECTS , LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS An EIR must discuss "cumulative impacts" when they are significant. (Guidelines, Section 15355) define cumulative impacts as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." The Guidelines state further that "individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects." (Guidelines, section 15355, (a)). "The cumulative impacts from several , projects are [defined as] the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (Guidelines, Section 15355 (b)). The cumulative impacts discussion must be based by standards of "practicality and reasonableness." (Section 15130 (b)). PAI998%N 162011 MW.4REG10NA DOC 4 -2 , 4.0 REGIONAL, CITIWIDE, HARVESTON EIR AND LOCAL SETTING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS In the local vicinity of the project site there are other projects that may be affected by or affect the proposed project. The projects, their sizes and approval status are listed below. The physical location and relationship to the proposed project is shown on Exhibit 11 Cumulative Developments. Cumulative impacts are discussed in a qualitative or quantitative manner as appropriate in various individual EIR chapters and in the relevant Technical Appendices (e.g.. traffic, noise, air quality, etc.). Cumulative Analysis 2001- Phase I Project Buildout Year: Related projects were utilized as a basis for quantitative cumulative analysis for traffic and noise impacts. The 2001 quantitative analysis (Trip Generation) for cumulative buildout was conducted based on the following related projects: ' 1. Solana Apartments: consists of development of 312 apartment units. The units are completed and occupied. 2. Tuscany Ridge Apartments: consists of development of 220 apartment units. The units are completed and occupied. ' 3. Retail Development north of Winchester Road (Winchester Marketplace): consists of development of 9,000 square feet of retail (Mimi's Cafe) and 100,000 square feet of retail/service. All are operational. 4. Winchester Meadows Shopping Center: consists of development of 135,000 square feet of retaillgrocery store. The store and retail are operational. 5. Fishhouse Veracruz : consists of development of 9,000 square feet of retail. The restaurant is operational. 6. Campos Verdes Specific Plan: consists of development of mixed use residential, retail and commercial development. The development will be 25% occupied by the end of Phase I of the Harveston development. 7. Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan: consists of development of 575 single family detached dwelling units, an elementary school, and a 6 -acre park. The development is under development review. 8. Costco Relocation and Expansion: consists of development and expansion of 147,000 square feet of retail/discount superstore. The development is approved and under construction. 9. Temecula Mall Phase I: consists of development of 1,167,000 square feet of retail/shopping center. The Temecula Mall Phase I is completed and operational. 10. Promenade Residential Development: consists of development of 60 single family detached dwelling units. The development is completed and occupied. 11. Warm Springs Specific Plan: consists of development of 215 dwelling units. • Note: The above list identified projects as of August 1999. P Q998%N16201EIRN.0.REGION1O0C 4 -3 4.0 REGIONAL, CITIWIDE, HARVESTON EIR AND LOCAL SETTING Cumulative Analysis 2005 — Complete Project Buildout Year: Related projects were utilized as a basis for quantitative cumulative analysis for traffic and noise impacts. The 2005 quantitative analysis (Trip Generation) for cumulative buildout was conducted based on the following related projects: , 1. Solana Apartments: consists of development of 312 apartment units. The units are completed and occupied. 2. Tuscany Ridge Apartments: consists of development of 220 apartment units. The units are completed and occupied. 3. Retail Development north of Winchester Road (Winchester Marketplace): consists of development of 9,000 square feet of retail (Mimi's Caf6) and 100,000 square feet of retail /service. All are operational. , 4. Winchester Meadows Shopping Center: consists of development of 135,000 square feet of retail/grocery store. The store and retail are operational. 5. Fishhouse Veracruz: consists of development of 9,000 square feet of retail. The restaurant is operational. ' 6. Campos Verdes Specific Plan: consists of development of mixed use residential, retail and commercial development. The development is buildout or nearly buildout. 7. Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan: consists of development of 575 single family detached dwelling units, an elementary school, and a 6 -acre park. The development is under development review. 8. Costco Relocation and Expansion: consists of development and expansion of 147,000 square feet of retaiUdiscount superstore. The development is approved and under construction. 9. Temecula Mall Phases I and II: consists of development of 1,644,000 square feet of retail /shopping center. The Temecula Mall will be completely built out by 2005. 10. Promenade Residential Development: consists of development of 60 single family detached , dwelling units. The development is completed and occupied. 11. Warm Springs Specific Plan: consists of development of 1,075 dwelling units. The development ' is under construction. Note: The above list identified projects as of August, 1999. PAI 99MN 1620 1 IEIRW.6R GIOKA DOG 4-4 , Haroeston EIR Lennar Communitie., HOT SpR Rp 1 � v P 9� -pO pP' ' _RUSTIC s. GLEN DR U% i 1 / CAS RD '\ MARGARITA % ! i / RORIPAUGH RD ' !•� MEADOWS DR aP� � NORTH GENERAL �f KEARNY RD Q i to mISOv WAY i N - 0 LEGEND O ? O, ' Solana Apartments t Tuscany Ridge Apanmerns 'PO .. 3 % Winchester Marketplace 4 ; Winchester Meadows Shopping Center . s' Fishouse Veracruz Renaarant n Campos Verdes r Roupaugh Ranch - Castro RelomtianlE:pansion c Promenade Moll 1 C Promenade Residential Development ,LI Warm Springs Exhibit 11 November 2000 Cumulative Developments .V% HARVESTON EIR 5.0 ENVIR ANALYSIS 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following section details project impacts which were previously identified in the Initial Study for the ' proposed project. The Initial Study is contained in Appendix A of this EIR. The environmental topics addressed in this document are as follows: • Land Use Compatibility • Aesthetics/Light and Glare • Transportation/Circulation 1 • Air Quality • Noise • Geology and Soils • Hydrology and Drainage • Biological Resources • Public Services and Utilities Each impact analysis is structured in the following manner: 1. Introduction. Provides a brief description of the approach for the analysis and/or the technical report (if applicable), the consultant who prepared the report, the date, and other pertinent information about the report. 2. Existing Conditions. This section describes the project site and characteristics as they presently occur. This description focuses on the particular impact area (e.g., noise, air quality, etc.) that is ' being discussed. 3. Threshold of Significance. This section is based on the established CEQA guidelines, thresholds contained in the Initial Study or other generally accepted standards. The thresholds are the guiding criteria against which the impacts emanating from the project can be compared to determine if an impact would be significant. 4. Project Impacts. The impacts section describes how implementation of the proposed project will affect the existing conditions related to the site, neighborhood, and region. This sections provides ' both a qualitative as well as quantitative analysis. Appropriate terminology is used to define the degree of the impact. 5. Cumulative Impacts. This section describes the potential impacts of the project in conjunction ' with other projects as outlined in Section 4.5 of this EIR. 6. Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes. This section briefly describes compliance with the applicable City of Temecula conditions and codes. ' PA199WN 1620MR�E"IRON ANA YSIS.DOC 5 -1 HARVESTON EIR 5.0 ENVIRO ANALYSIS 7. Mitigation Measures. The mitigation measures section identifies the measures recommended to avoid, reduce or eliminate, and mitigate significant environmental impacts. Per CEQA requirements, this section will contain all reasonable feasible mitigation measures that would reduce adverse impacts to a level considered less than significant. 8. Level of Significance After Mitigation. This section states whether the project - specific and cumulative impacts identified in the impacts analysis can be mitigated. If the impacts cannot be mitigated, they would be noted as unavoidable adverse impacts. Impacts that can be mitigated are either mitigated to a level less than significant, or are lessened but not mitigated to a level of less than significant, and remain unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project. 1 P: \1998%NIUOIEIR\S.bENVIRON ANALYSIS, DO 5 -2 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ® HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COM PATIBILITY 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ' 5.1.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the EIR analyzes land use compatibility between the proposed project and the City's land ' use policies contained in the General Plan. It also focuses on the land uses that surround the proposed project and their relationship with the Harveston project. ' 5.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ON -SITE LAND USES The project site is characterized by gently rolling alluvial plains to moderate slopes within the northern one -third comer of the property. These moderately steep slopes generally fall within the 10 to 25 percent ' slope category. The 552 -acre site currently consists of vacant land once used for cattle and sheep grazing. In and around the site there are razed building foundations and horse track associated with a previous ranch. Several dry washes meander through the site, draining the site to the southwest and south. Drainage is intercepted along the Santa Gertmdis Channel located offsite to the southeast. The existing zoning of the site is Specific Plan. The General Plan designations include Low Medium Residential (LM); Medium Residential (M); High Residential (H); Community Commercial (CC); Open Space (OS); Service Commercial (SC); Neighborhood Commercial (NC); Business Park (BP); and Public/Institutional Facilities (P). SURROUNDING LAND USES ' The proposed Harveston project site is surrounded by existing and proposed/approved developments. A majority of the site is bordered on the west by the Interstate 15 (I -15) Freeway and on the south by Santa I Gertmdis Creek. Immediately south of the project site is the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center and old Costco. Northeast of the project site is the Arborwalk single - family residential development, which is part of the Warm Springs Specific Plan area. To the south of Arborwalk/Warm Springs, due east of the project site, is the 38 -lot residential development (Tract Map No. 29286) owned by Lennar, and south of this 38 -lot development is the Winchester Creek Park, which is located north of Winchester Creek residential area. Chaparral High School is located south of Winchester Creek residential development ' with Temecula Valley Unified School District Bus Bam located southwest of the High School. Other existing residential development in proximity to the Harveston site is the Roripaugh Estates community to the south and southeast of the Chaparral High School. ' Immediately north of the project site, in southwestern Riverside County, is the Warm Springs Specific Plan, a 475 -acre project approved for residential, retail, and neighborhood commercial uses. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan area, composed of a shopping center (Lowes), and varying densities of residential ' uses, is located east of Margarita Road and south of Winchester Road, adjacent to the existing Roripaugh Estates development. Lastly, southeast of the project site, east of Winchester Road, there are the Promenade Mall and Palm Plaza (Please refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity / Surrounding Land Uses). ' P:\19 WN16201�MIX .1 -LAND USE.DO 5 -3 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILI EXISTING LAND USE PLANS City of Temecula General Plan The City of Temecula General Plan, adopted in 1993, is comprised of 10 separate elements. The Elements are: land use, circulation, housing, open space /conservation, growth management/public , facilities, public safety, noise, air quality, community design, and economic development. The following provides a brief discussion of these Elements applicable to the project, including a listing of applicable goals. For existing and proposed General Plan land use designations, please refer to Exhibits 12 and 13. Land Use Element The Land Use Element (LUE) for the City of Temecula General Plan establishes land use goals and policies, supported by implementation programs for the land uses envisioned within the community including, housing, community services, industrial and retail development, as well as for the protection/conservation of existing uses and resources. The LUE provides the framework for new growth , and development, as well as protection/conservation of existing uses and resources. This element encourages future urbanization while conserving the significant characteristics of the natural and man -made setting which contribute to a quality of life that residents want to maintain. Applicable goals of the Land Use Element include: • Goal 1: A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses. • Goal 2: A city of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are ' protected and co -exist with newer urban development. • Goal 3: A land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. • Goal 4: A development pattern that preserves and enhances the environmental resources of the , Study Area. • Goal 5: A land use pattern and intensity of development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking. • Goal 8: A City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns. Circulation Element , The purpose of the Circulation Element is to evaluate the transportation needs of the City and present a comprehensive transportation plan to accommodate those needs. Government Code Section 65302(b) 1 requires that a Circulation Element consist of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. The Circulation Element focuses on the City's arterial streets and highways, parking provisions, transit and paratransit, railroads, air transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. P\19918Ni6201EM1 ,1 -LAND USE.DO 5-4 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ' EXHIBIT 12 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ' P119 WN1620DEMbA -LAND USE.DOC 5 -5 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBIL EXHIBIT 13 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 1 ' P5199WN[62011EMH A -LAND USE.DO 5 -6 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Applicable goals of the Circulation Element include: • Goal 1: Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non -peak hours. ' • Goal 2: Enhance traffic safety on City streets. • Goal 3: A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of ' people and goods to and from the community. • Goal 4: An efficient circulation system through the use of transportation system management ' and travel demand management strategies. • Goal 5: An adequate supply of private and public parking to meet the needs of residents and ' visitors to the City. • Goal 6: Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City. ' • Goal 7: A truck circulation system that provides for the safe and efficient transport of commodities and also minimizes noise, air pollution and traffic impacts to the City. Housing Element ' The Housing Element, prepared as a part of the 1992 Temecula General Plan, is intended to establish goals, policies and objectives relative to the provision of housing, and adopt an action plan towards this end. Additionally, the element identifies and analyzes housing needs, and resources and constraints meeting these needs. The City of Temecula has adopted goals for its housing program which are ' consistent with State and Regional housing policies. Applicable goals of the Housing Element include: • Goal 1: A diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula. • Goal 2: Affordable housing for all economic segments of Temecula. ' • Goal 3: Removal of governmental constraints in the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. • Goal 4: Conservation of the existing affordable housing stock. • Goal 5: Equal housing opportunities for all residents in Temecula. ' P11998%NI6201EMR .1 -LAND USEWC 5 -7 r 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS , HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE CO MPATIBILITY • Open Space / Conservation Element The Open Space /Conservation Element contains goals, policies and implementation programs to ' encourage the conservation and proper management of the community's resources. The purpose of this Element is to also provide parks and recreation opportunities for the community's residents. Open space is one of the key features that defines the character of Temecula and contributes to the quality of life that ' residents seek to maintain. Applicable goals of the Open Space /Conservation Element include: • Goal 1: A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the varying recreational needs of residents. r • Goal 2: Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. r • Goal 3: Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity. r • Goal 4: Conservation of energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation practices. • Goal 5: Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. r • Goal 6: Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. • Goal 8: A trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs. • Goal 9: Protection of dark skies from intrusive light sources which may impact the Palomar Observatory. ' Growth Management / Public Facilities Element The purpose of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element is to promote orderly growth and development based on the City's ability to provide adequate public facilities and services. The Growth Management/Public Facilities Element sets forth policies, standards, and implementation measures to r ensure that future development is coordinated with public facilities and services at desired levels of service. The public facilities component of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element addresses both infrastructure and public services. Infrastructure includes sewer, water, storm drain systems, solid ' and hazardous waste disposal, as well as public utilities. Public services include police, fire, emergency medical, public schools, and civic and cultural facilities. The growth management component of this Element addresses local and regional growth management issues including compliance with State laws affecting growth management in Temecula. PA1998%N 162011EMA .1 -LAND USE.DO 5 -8 , 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The applicable goals of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element include: ' • Goal 1: Cooperative management of growth among local governments within Riverside County. ' • Goal 2: Orderly and efficient patterns of growth within Temecula that enhance the quality of life for residents. ' • Goal 3: Effective and cost efficient sheriff, fire and emergency medical service within the City. • Goal 4: A quality school system that contains adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula. • Goal 5: Public and quasi - public facilities and services, which provide for the social, cultural, civic, religious, and recreational needs of the community. • Goal 6: A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports existing and future development in the Study Area. M • Goal 7: An effective, safe, and environmentally compatible flood control system. • Goal 8: A solid waste management system that provides for the safe and efficient collection, transportation, recovery and disposal of solid wastes. • Goal 9: Adequate electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication systems to meet the demand of new and existing development. Public Safety Element ' The purpose of the Public Safety Element is to provide a comprehensive planning framework for the protection of the community from the threat of natural and man -made hazards. The Public Safety Element is the primary tool for identifying hazards that must be considered in making land use decisions. Applicable goals of the Public Safety Element include: ' • Goal 1: Protection from natural hazards associated with geological instability, seismic events, and flooding. • Goal 2: Protection of the public and environmental resources from exposure to hazardous materials and waste. ' • Goal 3: A safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property. • Goal 4: An effective response of emergency services following a disaster. ' P1199WN16201EMR .1 -LAND USE.DO 5 -9 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Noise Element The intent of the Noise Element is to provide a systematic approach to 1) the measurement and modeling of noise; 2) the establishment of noise standards; 3) the control of major noise sources; and 4) community planning for the regulation of noise. The Noise Element establishes uniformity between City policy and programs undertaken to control and abate environmental noise. It also serves as a guideline to ' identify and mitigate noise problems, and for compliance with the State's noise insulation standards. Applicable goals of the Noise Element include: • Goal 1: Land use planning that provides for the separation of significant noise generators from sensitive receptor areas. • Goal 2: The control of noise between land uses. • Goal 3: Consider noise issues in the planning process. i • Goal 4: Minimize noise impacts from transportation noise sources. ' Air Quality Element The Air Quality Element addresses air quality in the context of local land use planning. This element establishes a policy foundation for implementation of local government control measures. The element also provides the framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions. Applicable goals of the Air Quality Element include: • Goal 1: Improvement of air quality through proper land use planning in Temecula. • Goal 2: Enhanced mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. ' • Goal 3: Incorporate energy conservation practices and recycling to reduce emissions. • Goal 4: Effective coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the Western Riverside area. Community Design Element The Community Design Element examines the form and character of Temecula from an overall ' City -wide perspective, as well as from a focused sub -area basis. The policies and concepts of this Element address concepts for the preservation of natural features, public improvements and special planning areas. , Applicable goals of the Community Design Element include: • Goal 1: Enhancement of the City's image related to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation. P11998N8N16301EIR� .1 -LAND USE. O ` c -10 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND US CO MPATIBILITY • Goal 2: Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signage in new development and modifications to existing development. • Goal 3:- Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods. • Goal 4: A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image. • Goal 5: Protection of public views of significant natural features. • Goal 6: Maintenance and enhancement of the City's public spaces and resources. • Goal 7: Community gathering areas which provide for the social, civic, cultural and recreational needs of the community. Economic Development Element 1 The purpose of this element is to provide guidance for economic development within Temecula's jurisdiction to attain an economically viable community. "Economically viable" can be defined as providing a range of housing and employment opportunities that meets the needs of residents and ' workers alike, attracting families and businesses to create demand for planned land uses, and establishing and funding public service levels that preserve Temecula's quality of life. Applicable goals of the Economic Development Element include: V ' • Goal 2: Diversification of the economic base to include a range of manufacturing, retail, and service activities. • Goal 3: Maintain an economic base to provide a sound fiscal foundation for the City as well as quality community facilitates as high service levels. ' • Goal 4: Establishment of a diverse education and training and job placement system which will develop and maintain a high quality work force in Temecula. • Goal 5: Promote the advantages to businesses of locating in Temecula, including cost advantages, amenities, housing, community activities and civic services. ' • Goal 6: Develop Temecula as a comprehensive, recognizable tourist destination, with a range of attractions throughout and beyond the sphere of influence. ' Temecula Development Code The Temecula Development Code is intended to provide the legislative framework enhancing and ' implementing the goals, policies, principles and standards of the Temecula General Plan. The existing zoning, under Temecula Development Code, is Specific Plan. Exhibit 14 illustrates existing on -site zoning. Exhibit 14a illustrates proposed zoning, which shows Low Medium (LM) zoning designation for the two out - parcels and Specific Plan #11 for the proposed project site. The area north of the existing service commercial would be zoned Light Industrial (LI). ' PA199MN162011EM2 I -LAN USE.00C 5 -11 ;• J (� ti ,r -,�� /. 1 ��f1 �� An 1 3� ` � � f r �. ,� 1) EIR I �� Lennar Communities r � 1/ SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY T E3 M 1079' Well J \ Source: USGS Munim Cdfomia 7.5 Quad and City of Temeaila Development Code Exhibit 14 N.TS November2000 Existing Zoning H arvesEon EIR f Lennar Communities f • i c t l �c ' > ; SPECIFIC PLAN #11 1 J / c LOW / 0 \ MEDIUM I \ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL r _ Ll}0 \� Source: USGS Murrieta California 7.5 Quad and CGry of Temecula Development Code Exhibit 14a ' ROOM N.T.S November 2000 Proposed Zoning 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ' 5.1.3 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE ' Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Checklist Form, serves as a guideline of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. According to the Environmental Checklist, a project may be deemed to have a significant land use effect if it will: ' a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an ' environmental effect; or A significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in physical ' development, which is inconsistent with the adopted goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan or Development Code. Additionally, a significant land use impact would occur if implementation of the project would create incompatibilities of land use either on or offsite. 5.1.4 PROJECT IMPACTS The proposed project will result in the development of single family residential, multi family residential, ' service commercial area, retail commercial, a park/lake /trails area, and school site, which will establish new land use relationships with adjacent land uses. The overall effect of the change in land use associated with the project creates potential impacts. These impacts are evaluated based on the above stated impact criteria. The following analysis includes impacts that would result from the implementation of the proposed project as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this document. Impacts associated with t implementation of alternatives for this project are discussed in Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Where there are measurable definitive General Plan standards, this EIR has used these standards for impact criteria (i.e. noise, traffic, air, water supply, and storm drainage). The standards are discussed further in the Transportation/ Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Drainage/Hydrology and Public Services and Utilities sections of this EIR. ON -SITE LAND USE ' The proposed project will allow for the development of the site with 1,921 dwelling units, a lighted 16.1 - acre Community Park, a 13.8 -acre Arroyo Park, a 2.5 -acre Pasco Park, a 2.3 -acre Village Green, three Mini Parks (for a total of 1.5 acres), a 12.0 -acre school site, 112.4 acres of service commercial area, and ' park/lake /trails system. The Specific Plan also allows for a ±13 -acre mixed use district overlay. The ±13- acre mixed use district is intended to function as the "Village Center" for the Specific Plan. The development concept for this area allows for a mix of the following uses adjacent to the lake /lake park: up to 20,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office uses; a daycare facility; a congregate care facility; a ' worship site; a private club house with fitness center ( ±15,000 square feet); and park, recreation, educational and residential uses. The residential uses that may occur within the mixed use district would not be in addition to nor would they exceed the maximum 1,921 dwelling units referenced above. The ' "Village Center" uses are intended for retailing and service uses of a community nature that attract people from the immediate neighborhoods. Section 3.0 Project Description of this document identifies the proposed Land Use Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan (Exhibits 4 and 5). These uses proposed are consistent with the density and intensities of the City of Temecula General Plan land use plan. Please refer to Exhibits 12 and 13 listed earlier in this Section. ' P:1199WM6201TR .1-L USE.D 5 -14 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPAT IBILITY The design and implementation of the project will establish land use relationships, which are based on , consistency between the different types of uses. These relationships are specially considered between the proposed residential uses and adjacent park/lake area, school site, and service commercial area. The t proposed land uses will not result in significant effects resulting from conflict between the uses. The following discussion of project features /designs illustrate this point: Higher density product is located within the Loop Road, however, since major amenities and open space ' ( ±18) such as the lake, lake park, and paseo park are contained inside the Loop, the "overall densities" are reduced. The exception to this (higher density within the Loop Road) is the apartment site, which is located outside the Loop Road at the corner of Margarita Road and the major project entry. It was ' determined that viability of a successful Village Center would be contingent upon creating a core density. Therefore, proposed multi family units were located in Planning Area 6 to help achieve the desired density to support the Village Center. Three mini parks are proposed outside the Loop Road so the outer , residential developments in Planning Areas 1, and 7 (one mini park in Planning Area 1 and 2 mini parks in Planning Area 7) would have amenities. Lastly, the outside of the Loop Road provides a large parkway (minimum +32'), which contains a 8' paseo to allow pedestrians the opportunity to walk to their destinations in a park like setting. , Additionally, lower density residential uses are located outside the Loop Road in Planning Areas 1 and 7, along with the proposed elementary school and community park. This design of lower density outside ' the Loop Road allows for greater setbacks and buffers, which would avoid potential impacts (noise, light and glare) emanating from the proposed community park (please refer to Exhibit 15, Loop Road at Community Park). Furthermore, as mentioned above, large LDZ and paseos are placed outside of the Loop Road in order to bring residents from the outside into the central portion of the community, i.e., the lake (core of Harveston) and to also provide a "buffer" between the Loop Road and proposed residential uses. In ' addition, Ynez Road with a curb -to -curb width of 86' and the minimum 25' LDZ's on each side of the street plus the residential and service commercial setbacks separate the proposed residential community from the proposed ±112.4 acres of service commercial (please refer to Exhibit 16, Ynez Street at Service ' Commercial). The proposed Community Park may result in significant impact to adjacent onsite residential uses in Planning Area 1. Please refer to Section 6.4, which includes the Conceptual Design Alternatives for the ' proposed Community Park. Additionally, Planning Area 2, which is located across the Loop Road, may also be impacted by the Community Park, however, Planning Area 2 will be buffered by the 66 -foot right -of -way. Within most of the alternatives, the more passive uses (i.e., tot lot, parking, picnic area) are ' located near the park boundary, which is adjacent to the residential uses in Planning Area 8. Additionally, the residential in Planning Area 8 is proposed to be 10 feet higher than the proposed Community Park elevation. Because of these factors, impacts from the park on Planning Area 8 residential are not anticipated. Although special community park landscape buffer treatment will be , provided along the Community Park boundary with the residential uses in Planning Area 1, potential impacts from noise and night lighting of fields may result. Specific impacts are addressed in section 5.2, Aesthetics/Light and Glare and Section 5.5, Noise of this document, and appropriate mitigation measures , are proposed to reduce the potential impacts. Additionally, it should be noted that the development of the Community Park is proposed to occur concurrently with adjacent residential construction. This will also serve to minimize the impacts. ' No significant impact is anticipated from the relationship between the different land uses onsite, due to the overall design of the proposed Harveston project. The design has considered these relationships and created means to avoid potential nuisance, which may arise in such settings. P:\19 WNIUOIEMR .1 -LAND USEDOC 5 -15 ' a r cd 0 a 0 O N Y ow Z3 � z K LLLL z z K ~ W 2 N O F N N K Q w Z W W W N Z LL Q i wxw- n� 03NItl1NIVW 0'S.01 'M.0'H O3NIVINIVW ¢ U p y N N UW LL W C p Oio U K U O J ow j Z Q ~ U U p w W Q 0 Y 0 Z� w 2 N3P N W p Z G MOH �gz s Y > N o > 9 N iN Z W Q 0 Q R' O Q m N �[ a m � U 2 `4 N 03NIVINIVW'0'S'O'1 03NIV1NIVW H3NM03WOH a r z w O w W w N N z a U O w s LL a � a 3 � 0 O N N U N 7 p z F z i- . / u \ 3 ` u / u - . _ )!� \ \ $ — � & ± ® \2!2 N ) mm_ _m @ ___au \(\( � . §2 k§ $ }\} k) �\ \ \ °} ,ter }§ � )\ §k y |�: ) ) / _m_ AIRVAINd _\ )§ § . ]2} — /[) \ \\ mj} § ( 2° \ � } z j . z a N N co 4j W o x O a v a YUw w?� 3u Y �Qz Y O O cl� N � ' O U Y O Q N � K Y O � � � = U F I O O m O =cc o o Y � � o •` I M N M , I J w � o I N U O � U W O 2az C3 W u d I W .6 m O Y ob Vry d O OF3QZ F M m I z �¢z 0 �� pf.JH W M u W Q Z N� - � a J ?� � � • w pUFU_- � s O t J i r rn M Sam O o N 1 J Q U 6 EE I m � Y ,J W U I w uj N W O U UCl �• I = N GWON Z3NA a '• • m • 1 / W / I U U Q N > W ILI I N O / Qo 9[31 V1Sa� N ''�• / r �' S m 00 .) P4 d rA � o � v i' 1 . i { T f 1� I 1 F W ti 1J J' 1 t 1 . a I� y C U w Y .� k Q � W � m .,,, O fir" S O w � � � , i� � W V � � � x .� �. k . �1 ,� 4 I 1 }�f� a ,.(y �, � � aG 6� �.+ .,.. � �� y � .� � . � / a �. ` µ li by �� •�I a a. �� U �, �' . 0 �, � I �. U � �� w v c � � 'o �. a r N z Q w � � � r � � � � � � � i � 1 T . b YT �L pp 1 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY SURROUNDING LAND USE ' The proposed Harveston project site is surrounded by existing and proposed / approved developments. A majority of the site is bordered on the west by the Interstate 15 (I -15) Freeway and on the south by Santa Gertrudis Creek. Immediately south of the project site is the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center and Costco. Northeast of the project site is the Arborwalk single - family residential development, which is part of the Warm Springs Specific Plan area. To the south of Arborwalk/Warm Springs, due east of the project site, is the 38 -lot residential development (Tract Map No. 29286) owned by Lennar, and south of this 38 -lot development is the Winchester Creek Park, which is located north of Winchester Creek ' residential area. Chaparral High School is located south of Winchester Creek residential development with Temecula Valley Unified School District Bus Barn located southwest of the High School. Other existing residential development in proximity to the Harveston site is the Roripaugh Estates community ' to the south and southeast of the Chaparral High School. Immediately north of the project site, in southwestem Riverside County, is the Warm Springs Specific t Plan, a 475 -acre project approved for residential, retail, and neighborhood . commercial uses. The Campos Verdes Specific Plan area, composed of a shopping center (Lowes), and varying densities residential uses, is located east of Margarita Road and south of Winchester Road, adjacent to the existing Roripaugh Estates development. Lastly, southeast of the project site, south of Winchester Road are the Promenade Mall and Palm Plaza. The project proposes 1,921 dwelling units on approximately 552 acres, resulting in an average density of 3.48 dwelling units per acre (refer to Table 3, Statistical Summary in Section 3.0, Project Description). The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and establishes a relationship that will not create any significant impacts. The project also proposes to create single family homes that will possess characteristics similar to the surrounding neighborhoods. For instance, the proposed residential development in Planning Area 7 is at similar density to the existing residential development across from Margarita Road (Winchester Creek Development). Additionally, the design of the community park in Planning Area 1 is intended to provide a buffer between the existing Winchester Highlands Business Park (including Channel Commercial) and proposed residential. The original Conceptual Park Plan shown as Exhibit 49 in Section 6.4 has been ' refined based on input from TCSD and the Planning Department Staff. The five (5) design alternatives, which are also included in Section 6.4 incorporate suggestions (i.e., realignment of Equity Drive and utilization of the 1.25 -acre out parcel) to ensure no compatibility impacts would occur between the ' proposed park and the existing Winchester Highlands Business Park (i.e., Channel Commercial) uses. Also, the community park in Planning Area 1 and the elementary school in Planning Area 4, both being public facilities, were located at the exterior of the Harveston community in order to be easily visible and accessible for the public outside the Harveston development. Furthermore, the proposed service commercial is not anticipated to create a land use compatibility impact ' with the surrounding uses. Location of this use is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Map, immediately adjacent to the east of I -15 and will avoid impact to the surrounding uses. Also, Ynez Road separates the existing Winchester Highlands Business Park and proposed service commercial uses from future residential uses onsite. The proposed service commercial provides a good transition to the existing light industrial uses which occur in the Winchester Highlands Business Park. Overall the proposed land uses within the Harveston project are sensitive to the adjacent and surrounding uses and establish new residential land use relationships that will work together and will not result in significant impacts. ' P:\19 NN16' -0MM[ .1- LANDUSE.DOC 5-18 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE CO MPATIBILITY LAND USE PLANS Citv of Temecula General Plan The proposed Specific Plan project will result in development that is consistent with the goals and ' policies of adopted City of Temecula General Plan. Appendix A of the Harveston Specific Plan provides a detailed analysis of the project's consistency with each element of the General Plan. Additionally, ' please refer to the following discussion: Land Use Element The proposed plan contains a variety of housing products and designs, which would cater to different ' groups of home buyers /renters in the City of Temecula. Additionally, it proposes a Mixed Use Village Center, which would include uses such as retail, restaurant, office, daycare, congregate care, worship, and private club facility and fitness center. Additional commercial uses are located in the Service , Commercial area of the Specific Plan. The 112.4 -acre service commercial area includes a mixture of uses that could serve or expand upon the adjacent business park development. Detailed development standards for the Specific Plan have also been prepared to manage implementation ' of general or unique conditions in each Planning Area. The proposed project includes components that achieve many innovative site designs within the proposed four density ranges of residential development and mixed use Village Center. The plan also provides for a variety of open space and recreation facilities including Lake, Lake Park, Pasco Park, Arroyo Park, and three mini parks. The proposed plan includes uses of paseos and landscaping setbacks/buffers to create physical and visual buffers to transition from the different types of development. The proposed plan is consistent with the City of Temecula's general plan densities and intensities and seeks to create a community character and quality that reflects the surrounding area. The Harveston EIR provides an analysis of the project's impacts on infrastructure and recommends mitigation, if necessary. Circulation The proposed Specific Plan includes a circulation plan and standards, which will dictate construction and , upgrade of the roadway facilities consistent with City standards. All roadway and intersection designs will comply with City standards providing safe and efficient traffic patterns and circulation. The traffic study prepared for the proposed project evaluates the potential traffic impacts associated with proposed ' development. The study requires adequate mitigation measures be implemented to reduce potential impacts. Both the circulation plan and the traffic study have been prepared taking into account trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along City streets. It should be noted that for pedestrian safety and aesthetic purposes, ' parkways are adjacent to the curb, except on the inside of the Loop Road. A general plan amendment (Circulation Element) is proposed as part of the project. The circulation plan minimizes traffic conflicts and promotes safe traffic circulation within the Specific Plan area. A Loop Road is included within the circulation plan for ease of access to different residential planning areas, reducing undesirable through traffic within the residential areas. It also encourages safety for all pedestrian traffic by separating vehicular and pedestrian traffic especially in commercial ' and high density areas. As such, the plan includes a safe and efficient paseo, urban trail and sidewalk network, providing pedestrian and bicycle circulation in conjunction with the roadway network. The Circulation Plan for Harveston is based on the City of Temecula Circulation Element, and it takes into account local and regional measures. Therefore, it minimizes traffic conflicts and promotes safe circulation within the Specific Plan area. Mitigation measures are introduced to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. P119 MN162015E02\5.1 -LM USEMCC 5 -19 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Housing Element ' The Harveston Specific Plan provides 1,921 dwelling units. The lots range in size from 2,000 to 5,000 square feet. The target density for the proposed project is 3.48 dwelling units per acre. The Harveston Specific Plan also includes 300 high- density residential dwelling units at a target density of 20 units per acre. In addition to the high density, three densities of Low Medium (514 dwelling units), Medium 1 (638 dwelling units), and Medium 2 (469 dwelling units).are included in the Specific Plan. The proposed housing types will provide a range of opportunity in terms of cost, density and design, which will satisfy ' the needs of various segments of the local housing market. The Specific Plan anticipates the use of certain residential product types by elderly and disabled, therefore, it incorporates the City's building codes and ADA measures in order to accommodate such use. ' The proposed project is promoting a variety of housing opportunities that accommodate the needs of all economic levels of the population and is providing opportunities to meet the City's fair share of low- and ' moderate - income housing. The project includes housing affordable to households with earnings in excess of approximately 120 percent of the current median income of the County of Riverside. Additionally, the higher density dwelling units will be more affordable to buyers as well as renters. The proposed project takes into consideration the requirements and measures of the Housing Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, therefore, nor conflicts are anticipated. Open Space / Conservation Element The Harveston Specific Plan includes a substantial amount of active and passive recreational amenities as community park, mini parks, arroyo paik, lake park, paseo park, paseos, trails, and LDZ's, throughout the development. The provision of parks and recreational facilities complies with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. The Specific Plan project proposes extensive trails and bike lanes that would ' connect to all the different planning areas and uses on -site including parks and off -site trail systems (Santa Gertrudis Trail, City Class II Bicycle System). Design features such as special architectural treatment, perimeter and interior landscaping, and lighting will be incorporated into project for safety and ' compatibility with the adjacent uses. The Community Park has been designed consistent with City standards. ' No natural open spaces are proposed to remain within the project. Given the project's location and the lack of unique environmental resources, the preservation of on -site resources has not been considered necessary. However, the project proposes to restore the channel through the Arroyo Park to re- create a ' natural riparian area. The Harveston Specific Plan provides for drainage and flood control facilities and improvements in ' accordance with the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements. The proposed project will comply with standard specifications to protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District. Additionally, all construction activities that results in the disturbance of at least five ' acres of total land area or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater, will obtain the appropriate State general permit for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits and pay the appropriate fees. All development within the Specific Plan boundaries will be subject to future requirements adopted by the City to implement the NPDES program. ' Po199WN16201TIR�.1- LAND USE.DOC 5 -20 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 L AND USE CO MPATIBILITY To reduce energy use, the proposed Specific Plan will utilize energy saving techniques such as orienting C _� buildings properly (i.e., north/south lot orientation), planting trees to take advantage of the sun, ensuring adequate roof overhangs, providing properly insulated walls, and providing simple heat storage systems ' such as dual -paned windows. In addition, the Harveston Specific Plan is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. In order to reduce light and glare impacts to the operations at the Observatory, outdoor lighting will be from low pressure sodium lamps that are oriented and shielded to ' prevent direct illumination above the horizon plane passing through the laminate. The proposed project is consistent with the Open Space / Conservation Element of the General Plan, and , the design of the parks / recreation components of the project is in conformance with City.Standards. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Growth Management / Public Facilities Element , The Harveston Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the City of Temecula General Plan, and as such the goal of the Specific Plan is to introduce a development within the southwestern Riverside 1 County that will achieve economic growth (i.e., 112.4 acres of Service Commercial proposed) and yet preserve the beauty and quality of life in the area (i.e., extensive park and open space program proposed). The Harveston Specific Plan provides ample amounts of open space for the enjoyment of the future residents of the Harveston community as well as the residents of neighboring developments and the City ' in general. The plan also include a 13.8 -acre Arroyo Park which will create a riparian habitat and preserve the defined U.S. waters creek bed in its natural state. The Harveston Specific Plan infrastructure standards have been prepared in coordination with the adjacent jurisdictions and property owners to help ensure compatibility. The plan does create unique development standards that will maintain the quality of life and the integrity of the proposed development. The plan proposes a phasing plan of development that would ensure provision of facilities ' and services to support development as the project buildout proceeds. The proposed EIR provides an analysis of the project's impacts on public services' and utilities' levels of service and proposes mitigation to ensure adequate level of service standards are maintained with project implementation. The Temecula Valley Unified School District has been actively involved in the Harveston Specific Plan process, and a 12.0 -acre site has been designated for an elementary school in response to the District's request. The School District will be made aware of future legislative land use policy decisions. , Public Safety Element The Harveston Specific Plan EIR includes a geotechnical investigation prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer that evaluates soils and geologic conditions to determine stability. Geotechnical recommendations and mitigation measures will be incorporated as required and at their appropriate milestone. The proposed development will require that all new development onsite comply with the most , recent California Building Code seismic design standards. Prior to initial grading, a soils report and geotechnical study will be performed that further analyze onsite soil conditions and slope stability and include appropriate measures to control erosion and landslide. ' The Harveston Specific Plan provides a comprehensive land use within the Specific Plan area. Land use determination is based on the best and most appropriate use for the land and situation. Based on the ' results of a Phase I analysis for the site, there are no potential risks associated with hazardous materials. P9199WN 162011EMR� 1 -LAND USE 5-21 1 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS r HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY I Noise Element ' The design of the Harveston land use plan has taken into account noise factors and has sought to maintain a balance where no significant noise impact would result. A noise study was conducted to analyze potential noise impacts and introduce mitigation measures, including noise standards in the Development Code. ' Development of the land use plan of the proposed project utilized information from the noise contour map to ensure that the noise sensitive land uses are not located near major stationary noise sources and to minimize any potential noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Noise Element are anticipated. Air Quality Element ' The Harveston Specific Plan contains a balanced mixe of residential and employment opportunities, therefore, reducing vehicle miles traveled. The Specific Plan area contains a service commercial area, ' and a Mixed Use Village Center, which also includes commercial and retail. The Harveston Specific Plan proposes a pedestrian - friendly environment where walking and biking are encouraged through provision of extensive walking trails /paseos and bike lanes that connect different planning areas and uses within ' the community. As part of the EIR document, an Air Quality analysis was conducted to evaluate the air pollutant emissions and introduce mitigation measures which will be enforced in order to reduce air pollution. The proposed project is consistent with the Air Quality Element of the General Plan, and as such no conflicts are anticipated. Ir 1. Community Design Element ' The Harveston Specific Plan includes extensive design guidelines and development standards that will apply to the whole Specific Plan area and provide unifying elements to visually tie the community and create a distinct character. ' The Harveston Specific Plan has incorporated plans for a paseo /trail system that will connect public recreation area, schools, residential areas and commercial areas. The plan proposes entry monumentation at the primary and secondary entrances to the community to promote an identity for the project area. It ' introduces consistent and unifying design guidelines that would apply throughout the community to tie different elements into a design theme that would reflect the image of the community. The Specific Plan includes flexible design standards for the commercial development that are compatible with standards for ' other uses in the community, yet create an identity for the commercial development. The use of landscaping is an important element in design of the Harveston Specific Plan. Landscape features from passive turf areas to group shade arbors and thematic and buffer landscape treatments all play important roles in creating a visually interesting development and reduce conflicts between different land uses. Design Guidelines of the Harveston Specific Plan require that construction landscape / irrigation plans and guidelines for roadways and slopes be prepared by a qualified landscape architect, subject to review by City staff. The landscaping guidelines include special street tree and median/slope planting program. The City (TCSD) will maintain all the landscaped medians and LDZ's on roadways with a 66 -foot ROW or larger adjacent to residential areas. TCSD will not maintain areas adjacent to commercial. The applicant or master developer will be responsible for maintenance of all slope planting areas until such time as these operations are the responsibility of other parties. ' P91998%N16201\EIR�.1 -L NDUSE.DOC 5 -22 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The Harveston Specific Plan proposes gathering areas and that will accommodate social events. The Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan provides detailed description of roadways, including street furniture and other elements. In areas of high pedestrian activity, provisions for street furniture and ' shade trees are included. The proposed Specific Plan includes extensive design guidelines that seek to create an environment ' consistent with the goals and policies of the Community Design Element of the General Plan. Therefore, no conflicts and impacts are anticipated. Economic Development Element The Harveston Specific Plan has been designed taking into account the City of Temecula's socio- economic patterns and will adopt to the City's both short and long -term economic conditions. The proposed development includes plans for well designed commercial centers that will meet the many service needs of the City. The appropriate location of the Service Commercial supports the above policy. The different uses within the development are phased in a manner to balance revenue generating land , uses (i.e., commercial) with uses that have non - revenue generating fiscal impacts (i.e., residential). The commercial activities will greatly help in providing fiscal balance, local tax, and employment opportunities. ' Additionally, the proposed plan supports educational programs and activities such as university extension courses, adult education programs, etc. that would benefit the residents locally and throughout the City of Temecula. The Mixed Use Village Center contained in the Specific Plan permitted uses, would allow for different education and training activities and programs. Temecula Development Code ' The Harveston Specific Plan is consistent with the current zoning for the site, which is Specific Plan Overlay. Additionally, the Specific Plan has been prepared consistent with the Chapter 17.16, Specific ' Plan Overlay Zoning District (SP) of the City of Temecula Development Code. Therefore, no project - specific impacts to the Temecula Development Code are anticipated. The Specific Plan incorporates the Development Code by reference. When provisions of the Specific Plan are ambiguous and are not stated, the Development Code will prevail. However, where Specific Plan standards or provisions differ from the Development Code, the Specific Plan standards will prevail. 5.1.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects ' will incrementally contribute to the cumulative impact of development in the area. The potential development of the project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, City Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance and City -wide Design Guidelines. No significant cumulative land use ' consistency impacts are anticipated P5199MN1630MR�.I L ND OSG.DOC 5 -23 , 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBIL 5.1.6 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES ' In order to assure that proposed structures within the development comply with the City's applicable Building Codes, the project shall be inspected and screened by the City's Chief Building Official and other Building and Safety personnel. Subsequent projects will go through a development review process. 5.1.7 MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts have been identified, therefore no mitigation measures are necessary. t 5.1.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No impacts related to on -site land use relationships are anticipated The establishment of new residential land use relationships with adjacent land uses will not result in significant impacts. 1 The proposed project will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space /Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. Additionally, no impacts to the City of Temecula Development Code are anticipated. 1 1 ' P519 WN16201EIRl A -I NO USEDOC 5 -24 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.2 AESTHETICS / LIGHT AND GLARE 5.2 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE , 5.2.1 INTRODUCTION ' This section of the EIR analyzes how the project may impact the visual character of the area, and how compatible it would be with the surrounding development. The project is located within an urbanized t area of the City of Temecula. Existing and / or entitled developments currently surrounds the Specific Plan site. There are no scenic highway designations in the vicinity or proximity of the proposed project site. 5.2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 552 -acre Harveston project site is predominantly undeveloped and vacant. The majority of the project ' site is characterized by gently rolling alluvial plains to moderate slopes within the northern one -third corner of the property. These moderately steep slopes generally fall within the 10 to 25 percent slope 1 category. Several dry washes meander through the site, draining the site to the southwest and south. Drainage is intercepted along the Santa Gertrudis Channel, which is located off -site to the southeast. The undeveloped site is located within an urbanizing area in the City of Temecula, and it currently provides ' aesthetics quality for its surrounding uses. The existing aesthetic quality of the site and surrounding uses is described in more detail below. The General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the project site. Additionally, the site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. Based on the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan and City of Temecula General Plan, State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road) is listed as a State Eligible Scenic Highway and is located (approximately 1 /a miles) ' east and south of the project site. Based on site visits performed by EDAW and RBF, the site is currently not predominantly visible from State Highway 79 North. ON -SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES , Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity / Surrounding Land Uses in Section 3.0 of this EIR, shows the surrounding land ' uses, and Exhibits 17 through 20 are a photo key map and photographs of the site and its surrounding uses. Exhibit 18, Site Photo A is a view from the end of Ynez Road, looking north onsite. Surrounding land ' uses include the Business Park to the south, pictured in Site Photo B. The view is primarily of vegetation, with the exception of the unpaved, dirt road that runs east -west on the portion visible in the photograph. ' Site Photo B is a view looking off -site, across the street from the Winchester Highlands Business Park looking down the end of Ynez Road. Site Photo C is a view looking towards the eastem/southeastem edge of the site from south side of the Santa Gertrudis River Bridge along Margarita Road. This view ' depicts vacant, undeveloped land onsite. Exhibit 19, Site Photo D is a view looking towards the western edge of the site from the north side of the Santa Gertrudis River Bridge. This view depicts vacant, undeveloped land onsite. Site Photo E is a view ' looking off -site, from the north side of the Santa Gertrudis Bridge on Margarita Road looking south towards the Ralphs shopping center and down the riverbed towards the Costo and Pep Boys shopping areas. Site Photo F is a view of the proposed project area looking from across the street on Margarita Road. This view also depicts vacant, undeveloped land on -site. PAM NN 162011E0215.2 -AFS UICS.DOC 5 -25 , 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.2 AESTHETICS / LIGHT AND GL ARE ' Exhibit 20, Site Photo G is a view of Chaparral High School taken from across the street on Margarita Road. Site Photo H is a view of the existing Winchester Creek Park on Margarita Road. The photo is looking across from the project site and depicts soccer fields, play equipment, parking lot and restroom facilities. Site Photo I is a view of the project site looking across Margarita Road from the park in the previous site photo. This view depicts mostly vegetation, with the exception of the unpaved, dirt road that runs east -west on the portion visible in the photograph. Site Photo J is a view of the Arborwalk Homes from across Margarita Road, just north of the project site. This photo depicts the existing residential development in the area. MOUNT PALOMAR OBSERVATORY The site is located within proximity to the Palomar Observatory (45- Radius Lighting Impact Zone), which requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. 5.2.3 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Checklist Form, serves as a guideline of ' consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. According to the Environmental Checklist, a project may be deemed to have a significant aesthetics effect if it will: a. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or b. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. A significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in substantial obstruction of any scenic vista or public open space view. Additionally, a project would adversely impact the surrounding area if it would create an aesthetically offensive site open to view by the public. 5.2.4 PROJECT IMPACTS The project site is currently undeveloped. Implementation of the Harveston project will alter the aesthetic character of the area. The project's development could potentially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding; however, the proposed project includes features, which help avoid potential aesthetic impacts. These features include consideration of the overall grading plan for development, residential planned development conceptual landscaping plans, and other site design proposals (i.e., expanded landscaped parkways along the perimeter roadways and aesthetically pleasing wall treatments) which will minimize the aesthetic impacts of the project. Additionally, although State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road) is in close proximity to the Harveston site and that it has the potential to become a State designated scenic highway, the site is not directly visible from State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road). Therefore, no impacts related to scenic highways are anticipated. ' P1199fl18N 1620 MR�.2 -AFSI FMCS. DOC 5 -30 .'i 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.2 AESTHE / LIGHT A ND G LARE ON -SITE AND SURROUNDING USES The City General Plan has designated a mix of residential, recreational and service commercial uses for the site. Adverse impacts related to aesthetics and light and glare will be avoided if the overall design of the development is visually appealing and compatible with the surrounding uses. The proposed Specific Plan project is a highly amenitized master planned residential community. The intent of master planned developments is to provide aesthetically pleasing communities versus non - master planned piecemeal developments. Implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan, which contains comprehensive Design Guidelines will assure that the new development will create a visually pleasing view and that while unique, it will not be in contrast with the surrounding uses. The Specific Plan Design Guidelines contain detailed architectural and landscape guidelines and proposed landscape and perimeter wall sections which will minimize adverse aesthetic impacts to the surrounding uses. With the implementation of these Design Guidelines and Mitigation Measure 1 (Section 5.2.7), the project's visible development area would largely be compatible with and improve the aesthetic character that currently exists. No adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated with implementation of the Specific Plan and Mitigation Measure 1. The Harveston Specific Plan project proposes a 16.1 -acre community park, which will be dedicated to the City of Temecula. The proposed park will include ball fields and lighting associated with sporting activities. The proposed ball field lighting may impact adjacent residential uses in Planning Areas I and S. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, potential impacts related to ball field lighting would be mitigated to less than significant levels. MOUNT PALOMAR OBSERVATORY Due to the project site's proximity to the Mount Palomar Observatory, the City requires nighttime lighting restrictions, which will prevent "skyglow" condition. This "skyglow" condition would adversely impact the use of the telescope at the observatory. The project will comply with the City of Temecula ordinance that restricts nighttime lighting for such areas. Low - intensity lighting standards will avoid impacts to observatory operations (County of Riverside Ordinance No. 655). With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. 5.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project site is currently undeveloped and is within an urbanizing area. Residential developments exist to east and southeast and north of the project, and commercial development exists to the south of the proposed development. Cumulative impacts include the conversion of vacant land to urban or suburban uses. Additionally, there would be a cumulative visual impact relative to the cumulative loss of vacant undeveloped land as viewed from the public roadways. Nighttime illumination and daytime glare would also be increased in the project area as a result of cumulative project development. In summary, the project in conjunction with other proposed or on -going projects occur within an urbanizing area. The City of Temecula General Plan designates the area for urban uses. Development will result in changes to the appearance of the landscape as viewed from public roads. Proposed cumulative development will also contribute to cumulative night lighting and daytime glare and reflective impacts. Because the proposed development is a master planned community with detailed Specific Plan Design Guidelines and is anticipated by the General Plan, and it is a continuation of existing land use patterns, the project's incremental cumulative aesthetic impact is not considered significant. PA1 "WN162011E1R\5.2- AESRIEfIC5.O0C 5-31 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.2 AESTHETICS / LIGHT AND GLARE ' 5.2.6 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES The proposed Harveston project shall comply with the applicable codes and standards including the California Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, etc. Compliance with the City's standards shall assure safe utilization of the facilities at night by the public. ' 5.2.7 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. During development plan review process, all architectural and landscape design plans and plant palettes shall be reviewed and approved by the City. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the community park lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Director as part of the review process of the construction plans. ' 3. The Master Developer shall provide the prospective homebuyers notice that the 16 -acre community park will include sports field lighting for evening use. Proof of this notification shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the final map. 4. In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mt. Palomar Observatory, all lighting shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps; shielding to prevent upward illumination; and compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655. ' 5.2.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of the above mitigation measures, no significant impacts related to aesthetics and light and glare are anticipated. 1 ' PAJ"S�NI UOIEIR�.2- AUTNFnCS.D 5 -32 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION ' 5.3.1 INTRODUCTION The information contained in this section is summarized from the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates on July 19, 2000. The Traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines. Discussion were held with the City of Temecula Department of Public Works - traffic engineering staff prior to preparation of the traffic study to establish the project scope, methodology, and technical assumptions. The original report dated March 24, 2000 was revised in response to City Staff comments. The revised report is provided in Technical Appendix B of this EIR. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS The Study Area and Study Area Land Use assumptions are detailed in Section 3.1 and 3.2 of the Traffic Study contained in Appendix B of this EIR. For the purposes of the Traffic Impact Analysis, the area of detailed study was defined through discussions with the City Public Works Department Staff. ' 5.3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING REGIONAL ACCESS The existing roadway network serving the project site is depicted in Exhibit 21. The roadway facilities providing access to and from the project site include: • Temecula Vallev Freewav (1 -15) — The Temecula Valley Freeway is a major north -south freeway serving the Temecula/Murrieta area, linking it to Riverside and the Los Angeles metropolitan area (via Corona) and to San Diego (via Escondido). In the vicinity of the proposed project, I -15 has eight through travel lanes. The most direct project site access to and from I -15 is provided at Winchester Road via an interchange with ramps in the northwest and southeast directions. A second diamond -type interchange is located on Murrieta Hot Springs Road northwest of the project site. • Escondido Freewav (I -215) — The Escondido Freeway is a second regional north -south freeway ' that has a junction with 1 -15 in the vicinity of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. I -215 provides access to Riverside and San Bernardino via Moreno Valley. From the site, I -215 can be accessed via the I -15 interchange at Winchester Road or via a diamond -type interchange located on I -215, north of the project site, at Murrieta Hot Springs Road. • Winchester Road (State Route 79 North) — Winchester Road (State Route 79 north) is a state highway which provides regional access to and from the Hemet/Banning area (northeast of Temecula) as well as local access to and from I -15. Winchester Road is generally a four -lane Major highway west of Jefferson Avenue and a six to eight -lane Urban Arterial east of Jefferson Avenue. Winchester Road has generally been improved to its ultimate planned cross - section within the City of Temecula. Northeast of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road narrows to four lanes for a distance and then again to two lanes as it passes French Valley Airport. Ultimately, Winchester Road will be widened to six lanes all the way to State Route 74 (Florida Avenue) in the Hemet area. Most of the improvement of Winchester Road east of I -15, has been funded by Assessment District 161. The widening of Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road was completed in 1997. P5I WMN 1620 11 W,3 -I NSP CMCU AnONDOC 5 -33 ' HBroesion EIR Lennar Communities _N 7s, 00 0 Cl) MUR � O S RD 2 4L 4L NOT 4 v ; S sL F s< a sL T ��S p 0 O W L _RUSTIC 2 GLEN DR 3 Lp l NI COLAS 4 RD 1 6v H MARGARITA — RORIPAUGH RD MEADOWS OR i Y NORTH GENERAL KEARNY RD LEGEND v 0 CC PALM PLAZA i 4L - Four Travel Lanes .a PALM PLAZA: 6L - Six Travel Lanes ,ry s. 4L Note: All roadways have two travel 0` pNA war lanes unless otherwise noted. s 90 i 4L 1 Exhibit 21 November 2000 Existing Roadway Lane Characteristics ® WA 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION t Ynez Road - Ynez Road, which will be extended into the western portion of the project site, is currently a four -lane Major Highway north of Winchester Road and a six -lane Urban Arterial Highway between Winchester Road and Rancho California Road. The General Plan Circulation Element currently designates Ynez Road as a four -lane Major Highway between its current terminus north of County Center Drive and Date Street and an Arterial Highway from Date Street to the City boundary. The City of Murrieta Circulation Plan currently designates Ynez Road as a Major Highway from the City boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Margarita Road - Margarita Road is currently a two to four -lane Arterial Highway between Solana Way and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The portion between Winchester Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek has already been widened to its ultimate four -lane cross - section. North of Santa Gertrudis Creek to approximately Date Street, Margarita Road has not been improved to its ultimate cross- section. North of Date Street, Margarita Road widens to four lanes and continues as a four -lane facility to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Jefferson Avenue/Old Town Front Street — Within the City of Temecula, Jefferson Avenue, located west of I —15, is currently designated as a four -lane Major Street, south of Winchester ' Road and is proposed as a six -lane Urban Arterial north of Winchester Road. North of Cherry Street the City of Murrieta has designated Jefferson Avenue as a four -lane Major to Elm Street and a six -lane Arterial north of Elm Street. South of Cherry Street, Jefferson Avenue has been improved to its ultimate cross- section. The improvement of Jefferson Avenue to four -lanes between Cherry Street and Murrieta Hot Springs Road is currently programmed by the City of Murrieta in their five -year capital improvement program. • Nicolas Road — Nicolas Road is a two -lane to four -lane east -west roadway which intersects with Winchester Road east of the project site and Santa Gertrudis Creek. Nicolas Road, a designated Arterial Highway, currently serves the developing residential areas located within the Nicolas Valley area. Overland Drive — Overland Drive is an improved four -lane Secondary Highway between Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road and an improved four -lane Major Highway between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. Solana Way - Solana Way is an improved four -lane Major Highway which connects Ynez Road with Margarita Road. Immediately east of Margarita Road, Solana Way has been widened to its ultimate Secondary Highway cross - section. This portion of Solana Way serves the Woodcrest and Meadowview residential areas. Murrieta Hot Springs Road — Murrieta Hot Springs Road is a principal east -west arterial which services the City of Murrieta and Riverside County portions of the study area. West of I -15, Murrieta Hot Springs Road has been widened to an interim four -lane cross section and will ultimately provide six lanes. Between I -15 and I -215, Murrieta Hot Springs Road has been improved to ultimately accommodate eight traffic lanes, however, it is currently striped for only four traffic lanes. The interchanges at I -15 and I -215 are under construction and are being improved to include loop -type on -ramps and widened bridges and diamond -type off and on- ramps. East of I -215, Murrieta Hot Springs Road provides an interim four -lane cross - section within an ultimate six -lane Urban Arterial right -of -way. In the vicinity of Winchester Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road has already been widened to its ultimate six -lane cross - section. Intersection traffic controls within the study area are illustrated in Exhibit 22. ' PA199NN16301TIRU.3- TRANSPCIRCO ATION. O 5 -35 Harveston EIR Lennar Communities h J P n 1s �OOO � r`~ h MURRlE q � RD 2 � SQ M O T O T ? � W ' - Ci 9. 9O ` r 0 p0 OP1 _ F 2 RUSTIC 2 9 l GLEN DR 3 iF lWCOLAS RD MARGARITA — RORIPAUGH RD MEADOWS DR _ NORTH GENERAL KEARNY RD PALM PLAZA i LEGEND PALM PLAZA 2 • Traffic Signal m OL pNq WAY ■ All -Way Stop s -i One or Two -Way Stop Exhibit 22 November 2000 Existing Intersection Traffic Controls '® V�64 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION ' EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Estimated Year 2000 daily traffic volumes in the study area are depicted in Exhibit 23. Actual 1999 -2000 morning and evening weekday peak -hour traffic volumes are depicted in Figures 7 and 8 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B. Saturday midday peak hour traffic volumes are depicted in Figure 8.5 of the ' Traffic Study in Appendix B. Ten intersections were identified (and approved by City staff) for inclusion in the weekend analysis. Information on existing traffic conditions was prepared using recent traffic counts obtained from the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, and Caltrans. Additional traffic counts were taken, where necessary to augment data from the local and regional agencies. The evaluation of 1999 -2000 peak -hour traffic volumes and roadway/ intersection geometrics in the project study area indicated that all existing roadway seements in the study area are currently operating at Level of Service C or better except for Jefferson Avenue (south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road) which operates at Level of Service D during peak periods. Area intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Operations Analysis method that is currently required by the City of Temecula traffic impact study preparation. This method of analysis estimates average vehicle delay during the peak -hour. and relates this value to the Level of ' Service provided to traffic using the intersection. Based on the HCM analysis results summarized in Table 2 (of the Traffic Study in Appendix B) for existing conditions, all principal signalized intersections were found to have an existing weekday peak -hour Level of Service C or better except the following: • Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue (observed Level of Service D/E; AM and PM Level of Service D); ' • Winchester Road/I -15 SB Ramps (observed AM Level of Service D); Winchester Road/Ynez Road (AM and PM Level of Service D); and Winchester Road/Nicolas Road (AM Level of Service D). For the Saturday midday peak hour conditions, all of the study intersections in the vicinity of the Promenade Mall were found to operate at Level of Service C or better. ' The partial stop controlled intersection analysis results indicate that the intersection of Margarita Road and North Mall Driveway operates at Level of Service E during the weekday evening peak period. Based on field observations, the all -way stop controlled intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Jefferson Avenue currently operates at or approaching Level of Service E during peak periods. Both of these intersections are candidates for signalization in the near future. J� ' P51998�N1620 PEIR63- TRANSP CIRCULATION. DOC 5 -37 H arveston k% EIR Lennar Communities h P :ti ry Jpp\�� O ,7 19 44 F 2 \SO RD 2 ' �o y 15.8 17.7 79,3 ?Tq b 5Q� 11,9 27.5 RDT n � 1 69 � .. 1 1 � 1j N m A Oi O O � u' L v 9 O RUSTIC _ 2 GLEN DR F 'O / V NIO i� 14.4 RO Y MARGARITA _ — RORIPAUGH RD � MEADOWS DR ^. o N h . 3 a. 0 ry NORTH GENERAL KEARNY RD r y � PALM PLAZA 1 ♦ \ PALM PLAZA 2 ryy � LEGEND 10.1 6.3 xx.x - Volumes in Thousands SO�pNA WAY j t9 X4 3 > r Or RO 15.1 �Q. 9 0 Exhibit 23 1111 A November 2000 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes MA 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION PARKING Since the site is currently in a vacant and undeveloped state, no parking presently exists on site. TRANSIT SERVICE Since January 1998 Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) has been operating two bus routes which serve the Temecula area. Local transit service is currently provided by Route 23, which circulates within the community. Route 24, which was recently implemented, provides a link from Temecula to Lake Elsinore and Inland Valley Medical Center. RTA plans to add a new commuter bus from Temecula and Murrieta to the transit node in Perris. This is intended, in part, to provide transportation for people who live in Hemet, San Jacinto and Perris to job locations in Temecula. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) PROGRAMS At the present time, TSM programs in the Temecula area are limited to car pool incentive programs which ' have been implemented by a few of the major employers and City efforts to implement a community wide bike route system. Significant efforts are underway, however, by the City Council (via the Traffic and Public Safety Commission) to implement a flex time /staggered work hour program which would involve local employers. The goal of this program is to reduce the current severe peak hour characteristics of commuter traffic. 5.3.3. TRHESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Checklist Form, serves as a guideline of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. According to the Environmental Checklist, a project may be deemed to have a significant transportation/ circulation effect if it will: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) ' b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. ' C. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). d. Result in inadequate emergency access. e. Result in inadequate parking capacity. I. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The City has established the following local CEQA significance thresholds for project traffic impacts: 1) • project - related traffic may not exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on area roadways that currently maintain D or better; and 2) project - related traffic may not cause LOS to increase on area roadways with existing LOS worse than D. PA1998 \8N 16201\EMR 3 -T NSP CIRCULAMN.DO 5-39 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION 53.4 PROJECT AND 53.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Since traffic impacts must realistically be analyzed within a cumulative buildout setting, the project specific and cumulative impacts are discussed together in the following section. In order to define project- specific impacts and improvements that would be required, an Existing Plus Project Analysis has also been included within the following section. SHORT -TERM IMPACTS Construction activities typically generate the following two types of traffic impacts: a) workers traveling to / from the construction site; and b) trucks hauling material to / from the construction site. A typical construction day will occur from 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM Monday through Friday. Since traffic generated by the construction workers will leave the construction site before the PM peak hour, it will not produce a ' significant traffic impact at that time. For the same reason, trucks bringing equipment and /or materials to and from the site will also not occur during the peak PM period, so they will also not have a significant traffic impact. There may be temporary delays on Margarita Road as trucks access the site, but this is expected to be a minimal impact due to this occurring during non -peak hours. Additionally, grading of the project will be balanced onsite, so offsite construction traffic will be significantly reduced. It is anticipated that this increase in local truck traffic will not represent a significant traffic impact or safety concern to existing traffic as long as drivers do not exceed the posted speed limit, maintain proper sight distances, and maintain legal vehicle clearances. IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR LONG -TERM IMPACTS For the purpose of the traffic impact assessment, moming peak hour, evening peak hour, and/or daily traffic volumes have been projected for the following study year /development phase scenarios: , la) Year 2002 Without Project - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; lb) Year 2002 With Project Phase 1 - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 2a) Year 2005 Without Project - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 2b) Year 2005 With Project Build -out - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 3a) Existing Without Project - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 3b) Existing Plus Project Build -out - Existing Plus Committed Roadway Improvements; 4a) City Build -out — Currently Adopted Circulation Element; , 4b) City Build -out — Draft Proposed Circulation Element; 4c) City Build -out — Date Overcrossing; and , 4d) City Build -out — Cherry Overcrossing. The final analysis grouping (4a — 4b) addresses potential project related traffic impacts at build -out of the City of Temecula, City of Murrieta, and surrounding Riverside County areas. City build -out traffic forecasts have been performed for two circulation system alternatives which differ from the currently adopted Circulation Plan and the current Draft Proposed Circulation Plan that has been developed as part of the ongoing City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element Update Study. Since the proposed Specific Plan project has incorporated a street system consistent with the City's currently adopted Circulation Plan, this analysis is contained within this traffic section. The remaining scenarios 4b) City • Build -out — Draft Proposed Circulation Element; 4c) City Build -out - Date Overcrossing; and 4d) City Build -out — Cherry Overcrossing are analyzed in Section 6.3 Circulation Alternatives of this EIR. P: \1"8%N162011E1W3 -i ANSP CMCILATONMOC 540 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION Also, in response to comments received from the City Public Works department staff, the traffic analysis was augmented to include a focused analysis of future Saturday midday peak hour traffic conditions at ten intersections in the vicinity of the Promenade Mall. Since computer -based traffic forecasting models that have been developed for use in the SCAG region are limited to standard weekday conditions, it was not possible to use the same methodology to forecast Saturday midday peak hour conditions with buildout of the Harveston project. It was therefore agreed that the manually generated year 2002 Saturday midday peak hour conditions would be used to as the base for assessing the impacts of both Phase 1 project traffic and buildout project traffic. SITE TRAFFIC 1 The estimation of peak -hour and daily traffic to and from the project site involved four different procedures: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, (3) modal split, and (4) trip assignment. Each of ' these four procedures are discussed below. Trip Generation is the procedure used to estimate the number of vehicles trips entering and leaving the ' project site during peak periods and on a daily basis. Vehicle trip generation estimates have been developed for the land use defined in Section 2.0 of this EIR. As discussed in Section 2.0 of this EIR, the proposed Specific Plan project consists of two major components. These components are, 1) the residential planned community located east of Ynez Road and comprised of Planning Areas I though 11 and 2) the service commercial area comprised of Planning Area 12. The vehicle trip rates (both daily and peak hour) used for the Harveston land uses are based on information developed and published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual 6 Edition. It should be noted that Specific Plan projects like Harveston with its major employment component (i.e., the service commercial area) and its residential component would typically have internal trip reductions due to the land use mix. The traffic study did not assume any trip reductions in order to provide a worst -case ' analysis. The vehicle trip rates (both daily and peak hour) applied to the Harveston land uses are summarized in ' Table 5. Application of the vehicle trip rates to the Harveston land uses results in the total project daily and peak hour traffic figures summarized in Tables 5A (Weekday) and 5B (Saturday Midday Peak). Based on the assumed land uses, the entire project (both components) would generate approximately ' 41,767 daily vehicle trips. It should be noted that at project buildout the residential planned community component of the Specific Plan generates 17,678 daily trips or 42% of the total 41,767 daily trips and the service commercial component generates 24,089 daily trips or 58% of the total daily trips. The matrix provided below summarizes the project traffic by land use and indicates each land use's percentage of the total trips. During the morning and evening peak hour, the project is estimated to generate a total of 2,824 and 3,844 vehicle trips respectively. For the Saturday midday peak hour scenario, the project is estimated to generate a total of 4,808 vehicle trips. The total project trip generation has been used in the 2005 (project buildout), existing plus project buildout, and City Buildout analysis scenarios. For the 2002 analysis scenario, only trip generation for the first phase of the project is used. Tables 5A and 5B include a summary of the project trip generation estimated for Phase 1 development. Project Phase I is estimated to generate 12,515 daily vehicle trips. During the morning and evening peak hour, P91998%N162011EMR .3- TRANSPCIRCULATION. O 5-41 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION the project is estimated to generate a total 1,007 and 1,140 vehicle trips, respectively. For the Saturday peak hour, the project is estimated to generate a total of 1,360 vehicle trips. Trip Distribution is the procedure used to identify roadways used in traveling to and from the project site, and the percentage of site- related travel that will use each roadway. The traffic forecasting methodology used in the traffic study does not require assumptions to be made regarding the distribution , of trips. The distribution of project trips for the 2002, 2005, and City Build -out was performed using the Gravity Model method which is an accepted traffic model used by the City. Modal Split is the procedure used to reduce the estimated number of site - related vehicle trips to reflect: ' (1) public transit access to the site; and (2) higher than normal carpool, bicycle or pedestrian access to the site. In the case of the Harveston project, standard ITE trip rates were used directly and no additional modal split factors were applied. Although area population/development at project build -out would likely warrant significant expansion of existing transit service, none has been assumed (in terms of mode split) for the purposes of reducing vehicular traffic in this analysis. This results in conservatively high traffic projections for future year traffic scenarios. Trip Assignment is the procedure used to allocate the vehicle trips generated by the project to roadways 1 within the study area based on the trip generation, trip distribution, and modal split procedures described above. The methodology for trip assignment used in the study is discussed above under trip distribution. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON SUMMARY MATRIX LAND USE Size Unit Daily Trip Rates Dail Tri s % of Total Single Family Detached 1,528 D.U. 8.33 12,728 30% Townhouse 93 D.U. 6.58 612 1% Apartments 300 D.U. 6.44 1,932 5% Elementary School 700 Students 1.02 714 2% Lake Park Facility 16 AC 5.00 68 0% Community Park 16 AC 50.00 800 2% Nei hborhood Shopping 20 TSF 41.20 824 2% Subtotal N/A N/A 17,678 42% Service Commercial 92.65 Net AC 260.00 24,089 58% TOTAL N/A N/A 41,767 1 100% P: %1998\8N1620M1RZ.3 TRANSPCIRCU ATION.D 542 c Q 09 d V = a e O r — — �p a° 'o s r n ' Z - W F `a o M r c - G " Z O _ - - _ - - - n M tr7 i _ Fi i ^ a a e A L F - — c L e 90 C y < Jl " s C W � 9 O Y cco C c n ry O r r• - - oo a u z O ` F ` F i a ry ^ N N F Q M 7+ < e m Z �• L O— O O O— O d '' tl F� a "_ A o a _ ❑ N F<< Z y L V L n P {J � A L r ' O a 5 Y _ o° 5 y m g 'e a i❑ v E L o E C❑ V � L � H C] � N ❑ L C m A O C u { LL O -E C a 171 F l < lY vi .1 Z y F V Z v`I Im g , O a w ° 9 A t A V) 6 a n i F W a Q � a 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION ' PROJECT PHASE 1 SCENARIO - YEAR 2002 ' This section addresses the traffic impacts associated with the first phase of project development. Cumulative Background Traffic ' As discussed in detail in Section 4 of Appendix B, the future background traffic volumes have been estimated for a general background annual growth of 3% in addition to the projects currently planned or under construction in the project vicinity. Refer to Section 4.5 of this EIR for a description of the ' cumulative projects included in the assumptions. Phase 1 Proiect Traffic ' Based on the projected Phase 1 project trip generation and estimated travel patterns in the project vicinity, a project trip distribution pattern has been developed for the residential and service commercial portion of ' the project. Exhibits 24, 25, and 25A present the estimated total 2002 traffic volumes including both background and ' project traffic volumes during the AM and PM weekday and Saturday midday peak hours respectively. Intersection Level of Service Analysis Table 6 outlines the results of the HCM analyses of the principal intersections in the study area for the 2002 with and without Phase 1 project traffic volumes respectively. As shown, under the without project scenario, all of the intersections are expected to operate at satisfactory levels of service (City's goal of Level of Service D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. When project - related traffic is added to the 2002 background traffic, all of the study intersections are ' found to operate at Level of Service D or better except for the two intersections listed below: Winchester Road/Ynez Road • Winchester Road/Margarita Road ' This is considered a significant impact. Intersection improvements have been identified that would allow Level of Service D or better to be maintained at both intersections and reduce this impact to a less significant level. The additional left -tum opportunity would also improve the current operation of both intersections. Please refer to Mitigation Measure I in Section 5.3.7 of this document, which requires the project's implementation of these intersection improvements. A summary of needed intersection improvements for the year 2002 scenario is illustrated in Exhibits 26A- ' 26C. P5199MN 16201UR6.3 -T NSP CIRCULAMN. O 5115 HAveston EIR Lennar Communities 7 9 'A 8 Exhibit 24 2002 AM Peak Total Traffic Volumes November 2000 H arveston EIR ' Lennar Communities NOT F� RO MMWRITA 'g '.H- 1.,,' _ �' '.NA WAY v ' \ 4` `/ I �.. •: ;,db: 'T` ate- \ �tim��GbG i 1 Exhibit 25 j , ,J November 200 2002 PM Peak Total Traffic Volumes Sal H arveston EIR Lennar Communities N N " S �p z u P � MOT �� ' RD 9� VI i1 .RORIPAUGH RD ��- • J:; 1 MARGARITA MEADOWS DR NORTH GENERAL ^b � KEARNY RD ' Z SO J.NA WAY iO � i O S ja 1 Exhibit 25A wo MA V November 2 " 2002 Saturday Midday Peak Total Traffic Volumes V� z �o � a z� d U CG "a U d Fz Z Z C ) � U d d d ❑ O en A m 1/) g d O V V m m Q Q ¢ Q W O N N (V P P P f7 O N v`. N N O Y � m V r � N �O P m r O v r �p P U V O C O O O C O O O C O O O C O O O O O O O O C O Z Y L h a O ❑ U U 4. LL tl p m p m U m V m V U V U U U ❑ m m p U m ¢ a 3 a N V O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O I Z S Y V CL a` J V U m ❑ Q m Q m p m V m U U ❑ m m m m U m U m p tl m Q U ¢ G F z ° a o E a 5 0 C n �❑ ► E I w3 o a � e � W a ¢ ' I a o I I V O O O O O .J � r C a `'� ❑ U m O ❑ m m m O m a m U m V V U V V V V m m m U m m I ¢ E c V_ _ P - _ P P r m 0 a ❑ N N Q P � N ° N Y h � a i O v u m u u m¢ m m m U m m u m m m m u m u m m m m m t Q � O 2 - o E ❑ c � c m r r f ,� 33 u p 9 m = o e a 2 2 _ y v_ x x x x x x x x x v 9 a" o ❑` 3 z z�� Q¢ a m e` � '_ z _ � W z o a r 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION 1 intersection/Roadway Improvement Needs In addition to the improvements proposed at the two intersections listed below, the Phase 1 project traffic generated by the Harveston project would require the following intersection and roadway improvements in order to achieve acceptable service levels. The on -site roadway improvements are part of the Harveston project's Circulation Plan. A fair -share program for the improvements listed below with an * shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City and the developer. Please refer to Mitigation Measures 2a and 2b in Section 5.3.7 of this document. ' Off -Site Intersection Improvements 1. Winchester Road/Ynez Road — When project- related traffic is added, cumulative traffic conditions during the weekday evening peak hour worsen from Level of Service D to Level of Service F. Level of Service D or better could be maintained if the following intersection/signal system improvements are implemented: a) add eastbound through lane and b) modify signal to provide northbound and southbound right turn overlap phasing. ' 2. Winchester Road/Margarita Road — When project- related traffic is added at this intersection, cumulative traffic conditions during the weekday evening peak hour worsen from Level of Service D to Level of Service E. Level of Service D or better could be maintained if the following intersections /signal system improvements are implemented: a) add a second left turn lane at the eastbound approach; and b) modify signal to provide southbound right turn overlap phasing. On -Site Intersections Improvements: ' - The newly formed intersection on Margarita Road at the South Project Residential Access Road should be signalized. The southbound approach should provide two through lanes and a separate right turn lane. The northbound approach should provide a separate left turn lane and two ' through lanes. At the south project access road approach to Margarita Road, a total of three lanes should be provided (one exclusive left turn lane and dual right turn lanes). - The secondary project access, which connects to Margarita Road opposite Rustic Glen Drive, would require modifications to the current intersection configuration and existing signal to control the added project - related traffic movements. The southbound and northbound approaches should be improved to provide a separate left -tum lane,,two through lanes and a separate right ' turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches should be improved to provide a separate left turn lane and a combination through and right turn lane. The following future intersections will need to be signalized or stop -sign controlled: - South Residential Access Road/Loop Access Road (signalized); and - East Residential Access Road/Loop Access Road (stop sign). ' P91998 \8N16201\ErM3 -T ANSPCMCUL TION.DOC 5-50 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION On -Site Roadway Improvements: , - Complete 4 -lane widening of Margarita Road to Arterial highway standards between Santa i Gertrudis Creek and Date Street. - The proposed South Residential Access Road and Loop Access Road will be constructed to provide adequate access to the first phase of the Harveston project. This will include at a , minimum, the following key on -site circulation components: - South Residential Access Road, which provides two lanes in each direction with provisions for a , median left -turn lane at the intersection with Margarita Road. - East Residential Access Road (i.e., extension of Rustic Glen), which provides one lane in each ' direction with provisions for a median left turn lane at Margarita Road and the internal Loop Access Road. - Loop Access Road which provides a single lane in each direction with a center two -way left -turn lane. Additionally, turn lanes may be needed at key intersections (refer to Exhibits 26A -26C). Curbside parking should not generally be provided along the internal Loop Access Road except ' where required by the City of Temecula. The provision of curb parking should consider sight distance limitations which may occur along the interior of the Loop Access Road. - Bike lanes shall be provided on the three principal on -site roadways described above. Refer to Exhibits 26A -26C for required lane configurations and intersection controls. i 1 1 - 1 P;\199B M6201EIR� 3-T ANSPCMCULAl ONZD 5 -51 ' t o z W LU E U) W Q `oius r a a i C h EL oa II 1 J IIi�I O O a rx,o 0 r= F s� C 0 ' Q u V ~ h W U L W ' GJ Z a rr za z z z w r o c o D 2 = z z z v O ? qj IL _ w O s� ca z z D W O U ¢ W z J � v o � LL a d o m m m ' t E a z y Z 2 c o ti O ' D ? m K v V C m z a N U) W N W Q W Q n rn o ¢ N Q � = Y ¢ Z e U U f H y 2 Z z � z 3 z 3 z v o o z N CIS $ N � N z as a W B v � y W a �^ �. 0 C c + IL « /) l ate+ w r o �.1ff y i 1 f~ d ° d O F t = LI ° a H a ' o o� U LLI zo LU 1 ' ~c W Z Z za z z Z O Z > Q b Qti a3 � z _ w o Q z CO Z W y x Z O O O W Q U W Z J _ N 0 C ° n 0 y O N Z V W H? W I- Z OW h v w Q ❑U V aU U �_ V 1 E ° O ' ¢ U ° U W U v U ti a ¢ c a O y K U d= V d' O - N a x O = 0 0 n o m e Ix w J ~° J ❑ J - a N Z n W o h L o g Z U Z U z ❑ a ❑ Q 2 i••7 @ '? 2 §: / §C � zm \ 0a b < � � 2 () \ zo 2[ t §( \ $� \ { E . e !\ \ 99 z )\ LLJ 0 \ 0 LLJ C/) \� }\ }< am LLJ @ z < : 7 2 ~ k 4 � � ts 7 � � . 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION PROJECT BUILDOUT SCENARIO — YEAR 2005 ' Cumulative Background Traffic Cumulative background 2005 AM and PM -Peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections are ' presented in Figures 23 and 24 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B. Forecasted 2005 daily traffic volumes without the project are illustrated in Figure 25 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B. Section 4.2 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B provides a detailed discussion of the assumptions / methodology for developing the 2005 cumulative background traffic. 1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis ' As summarized in Table 6 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B, HCM analyses of the principal intersections in the study area indicate that cumulative development year 2005 traffic conditions without the project would result in peak hour service level "F" at six intersections during one or both of the peak ' hours. The HCM analysis indicates that without the project, three intersections (refer to Table 7) would operate at service level "F" during the AM peak hour and five of the intersections (refer to Table 7) would operate at service level "F" during the PM peak hour. The intersections operating at service levels "E" or worse under 2005 without - project traffic conditions are identified in Table 7, together with the improvements necessary to return these intersections to the minimum acceptable service level "D ". The resulting service levels with the identified intersection improvements are summarized in 7. Projected year 2005 background daily traffic volumes are presented in Figure 25 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B. ' Roadway Link Level of Service A roadway link capacity analysis was also performed for study area roadway segments to check for roadway widening needs between intersections. This analysis involves a comparison of projected peak hour directional traffic flows with the effective directional capacities of the respective roadway links. Peak hour directional volumes are derived from the peak hour intersection traffic movements and compared to the directional peak hour link capacity guidelines presented in Table 8 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B. The resulting volume to capacity ratio determines the Level of Service for the roadway segment. It is important to note that the directional link capacity guidelines are not intended to reflect conditions at, and the effects of, signalized intersections along the roadway segment since these conditions are already addressed in the HCM intersection analysis. The link analysis is intended to identify roadway link deficiencies between the principal signalized intersections. ' The assumed year 2005 roadway system lane configurations are illustrated in Exhibit 27. These roadway lane characteristics essentially reflect existing conditions and committed improvements. Roadways within or adjacent to the proposed Harveston project are assumed to be constructed to their ultimate ' General Plan Circulation Element cross - sections. ' P:\19 WN I6201EMR ,3 -T ANSP CIRC ATON.DOC 5-55 � z � k . 4 - z� §% - � - ; - 2 2 2 L n 1 : 1: ` - } - 17 mi - - - - \ E- u u � 42 { 3 a;: u u . £ 2 � j 2 } � f | » - k k � - k - � j � y l- O N ... O " C w u W y U N 19 � O a a 0 x x 1 Y Jb b31S3 HJNIM� T r '� r s K Z > `L N $Hi e "ly C JW II 1 4 Cd ✓ i M K {7 T iy 7 �♦' \ � Cd i � < ✓.f �YV 4 ��1 •• i � A uy V z(lv TO i i i "tip•. JN /'! ' \ `3 „T p My " �• • i� 3 j i9) ' � 1 \ ' A C 4L VA Cd C) _a Op ♦\ O p � � N N Y � t r `� ♦v S�Z'I ' ♦� r ~ �i 6� r i aY „ M N U < p O d s o ° O 2 F 7 <� p z %Ilk< El 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION ' • Exhibit 28 presents the roadway segment volume /capacity service levels for 2005 conditions without the project. As shown in Exhibit 28, the 2005 cumulative development conditions without the project ' indicate that all study area roadway segments are expected to operate at acceptable service levels D or better during peak periods. Cumulative Background and Proiect Build -Out Traffic The evaluation of year 2005 cumulative background and project build -out conditions includes a discussion of proposed project site access, projected traffic volumes, and service level analysis. ' Site Access ' On -site access and circulation would be served by an extensive network of Arterial, Major, Secondary, Collector and Local streets. Primary on -site circulation and off -site access would be provided by Ynez Road, Margarita Road and Date Street. These Major and Arterial streets would not only comprise the ' basic framework of the project's roadway network, but would also serve as key roadway elements of the northern Temecula circulation system. As such, these on -site roadways are planned to carry a significant amount of non - project related "through traffic ". 1 Development areas within the project would gain access to the primary street network via various secondary roadways that form intersections along these three principal streets. The core of the residential development would be served by an incomplete loop road, which would consist of two lanes (within the predominantly residential area) with a two way left turn lane. Maior On -site Access Intersections Along Ynez Road would include: one driveway to the north of ' Date Street to serve the Service Commercial development north of Date Street and the residential development east of Ynez Road; and two driveways south of Date Street serving the Service Commercial development south of Date Street. The commercial driveway located immediately south of Date Street on ' Ynez Road is proposed as a `limited" access driveway which would only serve right turn in, right turn out, and left turn in traffic movements. ' Maior Access Intersections Along Margarita Road would include one access road approximately midway between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Rustic Glen Drive. A second access road on Margarita Road is assumed at the eastbound approach to the existing Rustic Glen Drive intersection. This existing ' intersection currently serves a residential development east of Margarita Road. 1 ' P. U99WN16 2011IR�3- TRANSPCIRCULATION.DOC 5 -58 N ti c � W � u c� A, ro U C O cd C O U u W O S3NO c ►v o. a y9 yy Z= <' z H if \. J u1 U u or \ a_ o33 A < i O t i J >ti SLZ o T < �• j H +L J p . ;L w � u j L OAT o � v y v z o w N m O p z r �■ ® o _ JL 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION 1 Cumulative Background and Project Build -Out Traffic Project - related weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at study -area intersections are presented in Figures 28A and 29A of the Traffic Study in Appendix B for the project build -out scenario. Figures 28B and 29B of the Traffic Study in Appendix B present weekday peak hour project traffic volumes at project driveway intersections and at immediate area project access intersections. Figure 29.5 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B illustrates buildout project traffic estimated at the specified study intersections for the Saturday midday peak hour scenario. Cumulative 2005 background and project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at study -area intersections are presented in Figures 30A and 31A of the Traffic Study in Appendix B. Figures 3013 and 31B of the Traffic Study in Appendix B present the cumulative weekday peak hour traffic volumes at intersections in the immediate project vicinity. These traffic volumes represent year 2005 total peak -hour t traffic conditions. Level of Service Analysis The HCM analysis indicates that with the project, seven of the intersections would operate at service level "F" during the AM peak hour and eight of the intersections would operate at service level "F" during the PM peak hour. A total of ten off -site intersections would result in peak hour service level F during one or both of the peak hours. This is considered a significant cumulative impact. Since the project's traffic contributes incrementally to this cumulative impact, it will be responsible for its fair -share of the improvements. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 in the following section, the project's incremental impact can be reduced to a less than significant level. The intersections operating at service levels "E" or worse under 2005 with - project traffic conditions are identified in Table 8, along with the improvements necessary to return them to the minimum acceptable service level "D ". A summary of the needed intersection improvements for the year 2005 scenario is illustrated in Exhibit 30. The resulting service levels with the identified intersections improvements are summarized in Table 8. Projected year 2005 daily traffic volumes with build -out of the project are presented in Figure 33 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B. Exhibit 29 presents the roadway segments volume /capacity ratios and levels of service for 2005 cumulative development conditions with the project. As shown in Exhibit 29, all of the area roadway segments would operate at Level of Service C or better with the project except for the following segments: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road between I -215 and Alta Murrieta Drive — Level of Service D (V /C = 0.90). • Winchester Road between the I -15 Southbound and I -15 Northbound ramps — Level of Service D (V /C = 0.87). The Margarita Road segment between Date Street and Santa Gertrudis Creek, which was found to operate ' at service level "D" without the project, is assumed to be improved from two lanes to four lanes during Phase I of the project. With this improvement, this segment would operate at service level "A" for the 2005 with project build -out scenario. If the immediate project vicinity roadways are constructed according to the assumptions depicted in Exhibit 27 (refer to prior pages), then all study area roadway segments would operate at acceptable service levels (D or better) during peak periods with 2005 conditions including full build -out of the Harveston project. PA19981N 1620MB�3- TRANSP CIRCULATION.DOC 5 -60 . � \� � � � \ § _ � � / _ � \ ] ` @ k � j ._ - 2 E _ � � - \ : \ � \ £ c ! ! ; : . � � ) ! !§ � \) _: - \ � -�- � w � ; ;! _ _: __ � -_ :z_ - _ % § §) \ _ , _ _ \ ` :f! - - - / :: \ :! : :: _; _ -! _:: [ ! }\j �: \ -\ - -_ :§ /: ;\ - : \_ /�- \\ :! i\ \ } \ \� }\ //\ \_ : 77 ��: {\ / _ \_ -! - :_ _ _ - \ -, -«) ;; { / _ : :_ - :_ - -- -- __ - _ - : :__: }) , - / ( \ E ) `� @ � ` j } ;!� � � � � � _ \ : � � \ � � ) (,,_ / � � ( \ ■ § ) � q ) } . . _ z : )/ � - - - � � o -_ -! : -_ � �� _ _ _ w - _ :- - : : - - \ _ -_ - - _ : - � _- - - - - - - � j � 1 z �Q a 1 �z � U za s F W a Vi U W 3 � _ ? u = c 3 J VI C m o m m o m m m z z z z 3 „ z z 3 3 m ' _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ a w = 6 a e y E � 3 a W U a W G:. E ' a O F U W a z -5 oCa= bU E y i n 5 W = m ' x a z �o �a Z O o d w z a V Oo F a � o a - W n F ? c F F O F c < 6 = C ? 4iC m. Y yitCC� ` .a a Bm"m WEC e4�`nC --a° m` z z z z i - W - ' °_ -- - - _ -- - -- 00z ------ - - - - -- - -- - - -- --- - - - - -- - W F z p W E C 9. E G W V a o E W — ►1 = 0 o s i ' W F F" a - W x a' �. z z� Q _a a U zo O W F a � W za F E a d > O o z o z a E a kr) W r c n a n o E H o� F- 8 F, F L L L a L` L U N m m m N m m m m m N N N q z z 3 3 N a a a- C ° a ° ° a oo °a aaaQQQ= 00 It Z z n F W aam W E E O ; C h E � 3 p �m It Q W U_ Ri W V] 9 a W a � u W E a Z 3Q, 0 F U W 5� 1 � z C� z W a a Q � m cm � N � Z a x S m w� IyM � R1 a+ cd � V G 0 Cd a Cd u u CIO u u 0 3-1 Ob 2131 S3HJN /,N fYp e t � j � u < u v e yr o ty \ N y C7 U O O J �1 3 F 2 O.q tI� — < 2 V 02 3 J ".l' A .t� 0.45 ° Y � oY Cd \ �_ �• � � i Cyy'' r i O "•� o 00 "�\ ?° •'� ° � p f1 H P Y� C m a v\ 7 St P 31 < M < w 0 1 P y\ 7 L r � 5 r c� y `o v v J M O Q N O z OF E3 I m orm no m m m JL m � x z ; N o y., U z ~ a Z o + a n a w C � RTO u Q U L) '" 11 1II( Z iI O _ J PTO � z ♦RTO— Lo IL " a U v � � N a a ++ WOE a a W W ` TO TI rcr �,� O LU o wo J 1111( J Z z a� o X3 � c� z o a IX Z U 1 ui O ,� J RTO � , , I' W U a W z Q - o � L a a o � m � �1 N z Z I w ❑ w O 3 O C O 8 Q O ❑¢ = W> W ¢ H w C z W K W > a y W =0 ❑ zLL 7 Z a C in ? h Z N J Z z z z a GIR CR�7 y • w I S u m ++ Y W O « � N 1 OJ nra 4 a m W W j \,1 2 V O O 1 ❑O �w Z Z o 77c r-1 a q �x o O U a y as p C W U "d W w nra y N wa � >_ ,liiir anra� I a z 0 a — — � � nrp z Ln x z w z J C N o � LL L a L o � m c c 2 O p> p f p Z v a c U ¢ Z 5❑ v= rn z En N m N— y W a s o� O LU = w = N = Z = G C N Z r = W N Z O = O 6 i •. 3� Z 3 z 3 Z z �0 °' S N O .V U O $ Om C �u -0 u a *F V) W Ln �f fi N F i v v Z > 111Y ° Z O � � C p3 � U N p v p C W W H Z O O H C W W W 4! ' Za z o O 7 z z z WO z OO F w �3 Cd CL Cd Z � O Wo lily 1� J llir W � g ° o LL ° O m C C O� � � N ' n E o xx N Z C N C O E E m p p O y W 7 a Z N z W E Q 's h 6' Z Q O N G O Z Z Z 7 SN 1 S N � 4! � N m s.i Zj WO y w O C > J o� A _ m m M m Z z `l tip- err 1 Oa � o� o U � v a h O � U w0 r p W LU w ?Ix T e w w b za z z z v w o o v Z Z z °= o r a3 z � O CX z� z Uj LL ' O —i ' w W z J = w LL C O � m � V n O v m p z ❑ o N o 0 W❑ C a ¢ Q n U D a w F W ov Er Z K V , O a� a a w JC7 Ua K� = a n Z O Z Z O ❑ ❑ 7 GiiA\� 5 w .s � k 1 x wo Y } W '� O O I l N v T u 6 t0 � �� ~ y V 3 N ap C a o c3 € Z o ' Q U Y D 41 ' W H W Z ' d O ' Z 6 z z z W f Z Z z U �o z &P o �3 � 7 Z � O 1 �_ O� ? O z z z z z z ' W Q W Q C Y 1 , O O LL 9 Y O 0 m � �` C O• V � N Z W c V W C V V Y u V Y 6 O O 0 6 0 6 W W C 6 Y E] rn G 6 C O 6 O LL Y O d Y s 6 W V z 0 N f V H Z Z Z O Q p V p Imp y m �a R v W U k in ' W o x � o � N m cd �V y r W � h c O L C u W VIII II JII v C r w v G y N C CL c � S Q p � O N i i D O Y W ^ "� Z Za z z z v W f O O O v Z z Z z O o� o CL3 � f � Z � O t7 � 2 w W L A 1i O O O ' Z z z z W u W S c N o c LL 0 6 O m C C q ' C N p � O Z Vy Ve y ^ V W N o f }Q� G G z � f z � O Z E E O c� E c v W .� Vl N N N u W N F yWj 1 9 m 0 Ix W W W W V W p; W E Q K N F (Y Q Z 1"1 Q Q < Q 0 Z n p C W n pZQ Z t C Z Z N 2 Z io G O O 1 ®. � x fi Wo N w11 Y+ .1 O C ' > a m T T T 3 3 z r = C Q3 a� ' 4 C W � H W ; � Z O b ' Za z z z y W� z Z z Z W O w O ~ O Cd a; C Z O t a C 7 W W x z O Z Z Z Z W V W ' Q C O O W 0 a m O C OI ° Z V V v C �'. v � G v `a N O E E E C G Z a ? = f= n 00 000 00- y T' C O C V W W W E 9 Of O W W V ' v Z l Z V Z Z> Q l7 > C Q O *: i Q W O N O N Z ti Z Z Lf � x O U U F W V x C) � N � sr W° O II J C L CL a `— zW 1 - Oa i 5� o 1 ° U 61 U i 1 w~ W w d Z n W 1 Z [L w d za z z y m� ° z LAJ 0 >= w O F O cd 1 Z � O a z !l LL T X Z OZ 1 w U w z a J C N o � LL a m m m _ N O H y w 8 1 U ? ? < v = m N O LU LO Ir C w w y C n m o w W U U 0 =¢ UJ Z > U ¢ u 1 Z z m i z o 0 g:a UP ' ® o 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION ' The analysis of future weekend (Saturday) peak hour conditions with full buildout of the Harveston project determined that Level of Service D or better could be maintained at the ten study intersections if the previously identified improvements are implemented (i.e. intersection improvements identified in Table 8 and Exhibit 30 for the weekday peak hour conditions with buildout of the project). The results of the Saturday peak hour analysis with buildout of the project are summarized in Table 9.5 of the Traffic ' Study in Appendix B. Immediate Site Area Intersection / Roadway Improvements ' In addition to the off -site intersection improvements summarized in Table 8 and Exhibit 30, the 2005 with project build -out scenario will require the following intersection and roadway improvements in the immediate project vicinity to accommodate project traffic access and to achieve acceptable service levels. ' The on -site roadway improvements are part of the Harveston project's Circulation Plan. A fair -share program for the improvements listed below with an * shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City and the developer. Please refer to Mitigation Measures 4a, 4b and 5 in Section 5.3.7 of this document. Intersections: ' The following future intersections will need to be signalized: - Date Street/Ynez Road * - Date Street/Margarita Road Date Street/NoNorth h Project Access Road Ynez Road/Service Commercial Access N Note that the South Project Access Road/Margarita Road intersection would need to be signalized for project Phase I. The following future intersections will need to be stop -sign controlled: - Ynez Road/Service Commercial Access II - Date Street (or Cherry Street) /Service Commercial Access III - Ynez Road/ Service Commercial Access III - North Residential Access Road/Loop Access Road - All future defined residential collector streets, which intersect with the Loop Access Road. Note that the future stop -sign controlled intersections on the Loop Access Road at the South and East Residential Access Roads are required for project Phase 1. Refer to Exhibit 30 for required intersection approach lane configurations and traffic controls at on -site intersections. 1 Roadways: Construct Date Street between the Service Commercial Access Driveway and Margarita Road as a 6 -lane restricted access Urban Arterial. The exact alignment of Date Street (or Cherry Street) needs to be coordinated with study efforts related to the proposed future Date Street (or Cherry Street) interchange. PM998%N1 62011E IR63- TRANSP CIRCULATION.DOC 5 -74 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION - Realign and extend Ynez Road from current terminus to just south of Date Street as a 4 -lane Major. * - Construct Ynez Road from the northern project boundary to just south of Date Street as a 4 -lane ' Arterial. * - Construct the North Residential Access Road between Date Street and the internal Loop Access , Road as a 4 -lane road with provisions for a median left -turn lane at the intersection with Date Street. - Construct the internal Loop Access Road as a two -lane roadway with center two -way left turn 1 lane. Curbside parking shall not generally be provided along the Loop Access Road except where required by the City of Temecula. The provision of curb parking shall consider right distance limitations that may occur along the interior side of the Loop Access Road. - Bike lanes shall be provided along the Loop Access Road and all three project access roads from , Date Street and Margarita Road. Note that construction of the South and East Residential Access Roads is required for project Phase 1. Note that the widening of Margarita Road between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Date Street is required for Phase I of the Harveston project. It is also important to note that full improvement of principal circulation element roadways such as Date Street, Ynez Road and Margarita Road will provide excess capacity which would ultimately serve substantial amounts of non - project traffic in the future. Conversely, the ultimate implementation of the proposed Date Street (or Cherry Street) Interchange would clearly serve significant amount of Harveston project - related traffic. These factors all need to be considered in the , final assessment of the project's fair -share mitigation, which will ultimately be resolved in the final development agreement. It is important to note however, that neither the proposed Date Street (or Cherry Street) overcrossing nor interchange is needed to accommodate the project buildout conditions evaluated in the traffic study. It is anticipated that these regional- oriented improvements would be required prior to 2010. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ANALYSIS The existing plus project scenario has been evaluated to help identify and address the direct impacts of the , proposed Sweewater project on the existing plus committed area roadway network. Existing plus project traffic conditions were derived by adding buildout Harveston project- related peak hour traffic to the existing background traffic presented in Figures 7, 8, and 8.5 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B. The , combined existing plus project build -out traffic volumes are depicted in Figures 35, 36, and 37 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B for the weekday AM and PM and Saturday midday peak hours respectively. The analysis of direct project - related impacts focuses on the ten off -site intersections which were determined to need improvements to adequately accommodate year 2005 cumulative development conditions with build -out of the Harveston project. Table 9 summarizes the results of the existing plus project build -out scenario. ' P: \199WN16201\EMR 3 -i SP CMCULAI ON.DOC 5-75 , `t 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION The results of the analysis indicate that all but two of the ten critical off -site intersections could accommodate both existing and full build -out of the Harveston Project and still operate at Level of Service D or better. Two of the off -site critical intersections would drop below the Level of service D goal during the weekday PM peak hour. These include the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection and the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Margarita Road intersection. ' The two intersections that require mitigation with build -out of the project are presented in Table 10 along with the identification of improvements necessary to maintain Level of Service D or better. The resulting service levels with the identified intersection improvements are summarized in Tables 9 and 10. ' Improvements required to adequately serve existing plus project traffic which are above and beyond those required to serve existing traffic alone, can be reasonably targeted as mitigation for the Harveston Project. Please refer to Mitigation Measures 3 and 5 in Section 5.3.7 of this document. Since the remaining eight off -site critical intersections provide acceptable service levels under the existing plus project scenario, then deficiencies and improvements identified in the year 2005 cumulative ' background with project build -out scenario can only "partially" be attributed to the Harveston project. The project's participation in the required improvements should be assessed on a "fair- share" basis. Please refer to Mitigation Measures 3 and 5 in Section 5.3.7 of this document. ' Emergency Access - The proposed project will improve local circulation (including emergency access) as well as access to nearby uses by providing needed roadway and intersection improvements. The circulation portion of the Specific Plan will help provide adequate access for local residents and emergency vehicles. Parking - The proposed public facilities (e.g., parks, schools) will provide adequate onsite parking, so no offsite parking should be impacted. The circulation portion of the Specific Plan will provide for adequate parking both in terms of numbers of spaces and location. There will be no construction parking on adjacent streets; therefore, offsite parking impacts would not be significant. ' Transit / Alternative Transportation (TSM Programs) - The existing site does not now provide alternative transportation opportunities for area residents. The circulation portion of the Specific Plan will ' provide for alternate transportation opportunities. The project site does not presently provide access for pedestrians or bicyclists due to its unimproved condition and isolated location. The circulation plan of the Specific Plan provides both pedestrian and bicycle circulation for area residents as well as project visitors. Date Street, Ynez Road, and Margarita Road will have sidewalks on both sides of the street. The Loop Road will have a sidewalk on one side of the street and will have a meandering 8' paseo on the other. A 10' multi -use trail is also included in the Paseo Park, which connects the Community Park and Lake Park ' facilities with various residential neighborhood facilities. This proposed network of sidewalks and trails will provide non - vehicular access to the service commercial area, onsite and offsite schools, the extensive park and recreation system and the mixed use Village Center. The proposed sidewalks and Class II bike lanes on Margarita Road will eventually allow non - vehicular access offsite, and will tie into trails along ' Santa Gertrudis Creek. A separate transit plan, bicycle plan and open space / recreation plan (which includes trails) have all been included in the Specific Plan. The proposed trail system is also shown on Exhibit 5 within Section 2.0 of this EIR. PA199MN 162011EMR .3 -T SP CIRCULAMN.DDC 5 -76 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION CITY BUILDOUT SCENARIO Traffic analysis was performed for conditions which consider full build -out of the City of Temecula, City ' of Murieta, and surrounding unincorporated areas of Riverside County as well as the Harveston project. This analysis focuses on an evaluation of the potential project - related impacts on the City's Circulation Plan also referred to as the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. Specifically, the analysis , evaluates whether the proposed project land use and access plan would have an impact on the ultimate configuration and/or operational characteristics of the City's circulation system. The long-range City build -out analysis involves a comparison of projected daily traffic conditions at a roadway link level rather than at a peak -hour intersection level. The intent of this analysis is to provide City staff and City , officials with information concerning the potential long -range impacts of development approvals that may be made regarding the proposed Harveston Specific Plan project. Circulation Element Build -Out Model The City Build -out analysis is performed using the updated Temecula Circulation Element Traffic Model (TCETM). The proposed Harveston project site plan reflects an alignment for Date Street, which is consistent with the currently adopted Circulation Plan for the City of Temecula. Build -Out Traffic Conditions Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service were evaluated based on the daily traffic forecasts developed for the Current Circulation Plan and the alternatives including the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan as well as the Date Street Over - crossing, and Cherry Street Over - crossing alternatives. The findings of this analysis are summarized on Exhibit 44 (Existing Circulation Plan) and Exhibits 45 through 48 (City Build -Out Circulation Alternatives). These Exhibits are located in Section 6.3 of this EIR. , City Build -Out Analysis Findings The City's currently adopted Circulation Plan results in significant impacts at City build -out particularly along Winchester Road, and therefore, alternative plans to reduce identified impacts have been evaluated in the traffic study and are discussed in Section 6.3 of this EIR. Furthermore, the currently adopted Circulation Plan is no longer consistent with the adopted City of Murrieta Circulation Plan. Although the project site plan evaluated in this Traffic Impact Analysis proposes a circulation system, which is consistent with the currently adopted Circulation Plan for Temecula, the on -site circulation could be easily modified to accommodate and facilitate implementation of the Alternative Draft Proposed Circulation Plan if it is adopted. The modifications necessary to provide consistency with the Draft Proposal Circulation Plan would not measurably alter the off -site impacts and improvement needs that have been previously identified in this EIR Traffic Section. Because the adoption of the City's Draft Proposed Circulation Plan may occur subsequent to the City's action on the proposed project, Mitigation Measure 6 has been proposed to ensure that the Harveston project's implementation would not prevent implementation of the City's Draft Proposed Circulation Plan. PA1998%N16201EMd 3 -MR SP CIRCULAnON.00C 5-77 - ' i v� z �a 1 z� x a� F G: r �o a x , a a a v' ¢1 :• o � a e r �. r b m h � � U C Q x O � V d - V m❑ U m m U U u m c a , O V s C m m a U U V ry T C1 3 k r z Z u m u u m m m u u m , u .O U m m u u u u t2 L2 FBI o c v V V L C •J L "J [ C C C t cf [] j N L 9 E0 0� �, x 2 2� W m m d b O N t� W T N 2 ' � a � \/ » � f � _ y � ■ a =,: ® 2 ) }c9 } \ } }/ � ® tn - ° � � § \ c§ ! 2 £ } \ 2 . � } |!� § - � ( k � [ ) k � - ` §� z - � \� � _ � � � 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION ' 5.3.6 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES No standard conditions or code applications which would reduce transportation and circulation impacts. have been identified ' 5.3.7 MITIGATION MEASURES Phase 1 Scenario — Year 2002 1 1. Prior to issuance of I" occupancy permit for Phase I Residential and I" occupancy permit for Phase I service commercial, the developer(s) shall implement the improvements for intersections ' 28, 29, 30A, 30B and 31 outlined in Table 6, Exhibits 26A -26C of this EIR, and listed below. Prior to issuance of 326 occupancy permits for the Phase I Residential and more than 8 acres of Phase I Service Commercial development (i.e. the southern portion of Planning Area 12), the developer(s) shall implement the improvements or pay their fair -share improvement . costs for the improvements for intersections 4 and 5 outlined in Table 6, Exhibits 26A -26C of this EIR, and listed below. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS 2002 With Project Phase I ID No. Intersection Im rovemen[s Project Prior to issuance of 1s Occupancy Permit for Phase I Residential and 1' Occupancy Permit for Phase I Service Commercial ' 28 Rustic Glen Dr @ (1) Add EB Left Turn Lane Margarita Rd (2) Add EB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (3) Add NB Left Tom Lane (4) Add NB Through Lane (5) Modify WB Right Turn Lane to Shared Through and 100 %n Right Turn Lane (6) Add SB Through Lane ' (7) Add SB Right Turn Lane (8) Modify Signal to Accommodate New EB Approach 29 Margarita Rd @ (1) Add NB Left Turn Lane South Project Residential (2) Add SB Right Turn Lane ' (3) Add EB Left Turn Lane 100% (4) Add EB Right Turn Lane (Dual) (5) Install Traffic Signal 30A South Project Residential (1) Add EB Through Lane Access Rd - Inbound @ Internal Loop (2) Add NB Left Turn Lane 100% Access Rd (3) Add NB Right Turn Lane (4) Add WB Through Lane (5) Install Traffic Signal 30B South Project Residential (1) Add EB Through Lane Access Rd - Outbound @ Internal Loop (2) Add EB Right Turn Lane Access Rd (3) Add WB Through Lane 100% (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane (5) No Intersection Controls Needed P51998%N1620MIR953 ANSPCIRCULAMN.DOC 5 -80 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION all INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS 2002 With Project Phase I ID No. Intersection Improvements Project % ' 31 East Project Residential (1) Add NB Through Lane Access Rd @ Internal Loop Access Rd (2) Add NB Right Turn Lane (3) Add WB Left Turn Lane 100% (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane (5) Add SB Through Lane (6) Add SB Left Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Signs on WB Approach Prior to issuance of 326 Occupancy Permit for Phase I residential and more than 8 acres of Phase I Service Commercial 4 Winchester Rd @ (1) Modify Signal to Provide NB Right Turn Overlap Phase ' Ynez Rd (2) Modify Signal to Provide SB Right Turn Overlap Phase 45% (3) Add EB Through Lane 5 Winchester Rd @ (1) Modify Signal to Provide SB Right Turn Overlap Phase 51% Margarita Rd (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane - 2a. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase I, the developer(s) shall implement the Roadway ' Improvement Needs identified below. Exhibit 10, Development and Roadway Phasing Plan identifies the proposed timing for on -site Roadway Improvement Needs. A fair -share program for the improvements listed below with an * shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City and the developer. • Complete 4 -lane widening of Margarita Road to Arterial highway standards between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Date Street. * • The proposed South Residential Access Road and Loop Access Road will be constructed to provide adequate access to the first phase of the Harveston project. This will include at a , minimum, the following key on -site circulation components: • South Residential Access Road, which provides two lanes in each direction with provisions for a median left -tum lane at the intersection with Margarita Road. • East Residential Access Road (i.e., extension of Rustic Glen), which provides one lane in , each direction with provisions for a median left turn lane at Margarita Road and the internal Loop Access Road. • Loop Access Road, which provides a single lane in each direction with a center two -way left - tum lane. Additionally, turn lanes may be needed at key intersections (refer to Exhibits 26A- 26C). Curbside parking should not generally be provided along the internal Loop Access , Road except where required by the City of Temecula. The provision of curb parking should consider sight distance limitations, which may occur along the interior of the Loop Access Road. ' • Bike lanes shall be provided on the three principal on -site roadways described above. P\ MMSN1620MR� .3- TRANSPCIRCULATION.DOC 5 -81 , 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION 2b. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase I, the developer(s) shall pay the current City's established DIF. In lieu of the DIF payment, at the City's discretion, the developer(s) may implement the off -site Improvement Needs identified previously in Mitigation Measures 1 and 2a above. ' Project Build -Out Scenario — Year 2005 3. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the Phase II build -out of Residential (i.e., beyond 476 single family units and 346 multi - family units) and Service Commercial (i.e., beyond 20 net ' acres in Planning Area 12), and Village Center neighborhood commercial (i.e., beyond 8,000 square feet), the developer(s) shall pay their fair -share improvement costs for the intersection improvements outlined in Table 8 of this EIR and listed below. The City shall also develop a t funding mechanism to cover the balance of the fair -share for each of the below- identified improvements. The specific timing of project 2005 build -out improvements (Phase 2 through Phase 4) shall be consistent with the Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program (TMMP), as required ' in Mitigation Measure 5 below. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ' 2005 WITH PROJECT BUILD -OUT SCENARIO ID No. Intersection Improvements Project % . 1 Winchester @ (1) Add EB Right Turn Lane Jefferson Ave (2) Add NB Right Turn Lane (Dual Right) (3) Convert SB Through/Left to Dedicated Left Turn Lane 16% (4) Convert SB Right Turn Lane to Shared Through and Right ' Turn Lane 2 Winchester Rd @ (1) Add EB Right Turn Lane I -15 Southbound Ramp (2) Add SB Dedicated Left Turn Lane (Dual Left) and Widen Off 23% ' Ramp to Accommodate the Added Lane 4 Winchester Rd @ (1) Add EB Left Turn Lane (Dual Left) Ynez Rd (2) Add EB Through Lane (3) Modify NB Through Laneto Shared Through and Left Turn Lane (4) Modify Signal to Provide NB Right Turn Overlap Phase 62% (5) Split NB and SB Signal Phases (6) Add WB Through Lane ' (7) Add SB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane 5 Winchester Rd @ (1) Modify Signal to Provide SB Right Turn Overlap Phase Margarita Rd (2) Modifv Signal to Provide NB Right Turn Overlap Phase 42 %n (3) Add EB Left Turn Lane (Dual) 10 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd @ (1) Add WB Left Turn Lane (Dual) Jefferson Ave (2) Channelize NB Right Turn Lane to Allow Free Right Turn 4% Movement 12 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd @ (1) Add WB Right Turn Lane Alta Murata Dr (2) Modify WB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane to Through 21% Lane 13 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd @ (1) Add EB Right Turn Lane Margarita Rd (2) Modify NB Through Lane to Shared Through and Left Turn 43 %n Lane 18 Overland Dr @ (1) Modify Signal to Provide WB Right Turn Overlap Phase Jefferson Ave (2) Modify Signal to Provide NB Right Turn Overlap Phase 14% (3) Split NB and SB Signal Phases ' P \I998 \8N16201\EIR\ 3- TRANSPCIRCULATION.DOC 5-82 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS , 2005 WITH PROJECT BUILD -OUT SCENARIO ID No. Intersection Improvements Project % ■ 19 Overland Dr @ (1) Add WB Right Turn Lane Ynez Rd (2) Modify WB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane to Through Lane 27% (3) Modify Signal to Provide WB Right Turn Overlap Phase (4) Modify Signal to Provide SB Right Turn Overlap Phase 26 Overland Dr @ (1) Modify NB Through Lane to Shared Through and Left Turn 1 Margarita Rd Lane 100% (2) Split NB and SB Signal Phases 28 Rustic Glen Dr @ (1) Add EB Left Turn Lane ' Margarita Rd (2) Add EB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (3) Add NB Left Turn Lane (4) Add NB Through Lane (5) Modify WB Right Turn Lane to Shared Through and Right 100% 1 Turn Lane (6) Add SB Through Lane (7) Add SB Right Turn Lane , (8) Modif Si nal to Accommodate New EB Approach 30A South Project Residential (1) Add EB Through Lane Access Rd - Inbound @ Internal Loop (2) Add NB Left Turn Lane Access Rd (3) Add NB Right Turn Lane 100% (4) Add WB Through Lane (5) Install Stop Signs on EB and WB Approaches 30B South Project Residential (1) Add EB Through Lane Access Rd - Outbound @ Internal Loop (2) Add EB Right Turn Lane Access Rd (3) Add WB Through Lane 100% (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane (5) No Intersection Controls Needed 31 East Project Residential (1) Add NB Through Lane ' Access Rd @ Internal Loop Access Rd (2) Add NB Right Turn Lane (3) Add WB Left Turn Lane (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane 100% (5) Add SB Through Lane (6) Add SB Left Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Sign on WB Approach ' 32 Date St @ (1) Add 3 EB Through Lanes Ynez Rd (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane (3) Add EB Right Turn Lane (4) Add 2 NB Through Lanes ' (5) Add NB Left Tom Lane (6) Add NB Right Turn Lane 42% (7) Add 2 WB Through Lanes (8) Add 2 WB Left Turn Lanes (Dual Left) (9) Add WB Right Turn Lane (10) Add 2 SB Through Lanes PA199MN16201EIR�3 -TRA SPCIRCULAMNDOC 5 -83 , 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION ' INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS 2005 WITH PROJECT BUILD -OUT SCENARIO ' ID No. Intersection Improvements Pro % (11) Add SB Left Turn Lane ' (12) Add SB Right Turn Lane (13) Install Traffic Signal 33 Date St @ (1) Add NB Through Lane Service Commercial Access 1 (2) Add NB Right Turn Lane ' (3) Add WB Left Turn Lane (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane 100% (5) Add SB Through Lane ' (6) Add SB Left Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Sins on NB and SB Approaches 34 Date St @ (1) Add 2 EB Through Lanes North Project Residential (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane . ' Access Rd (3) Add EB Right Turn Lane (4) Add NB Shared Through and Left Tom Lane 1 (5) Add NB Left Turn Lane (6) Add NB Right Turn Lane 76% (7) Add 2 WB Through Lanes (8) Add WB Left Turn Lane M (9) Add WB Right Turn Lane S (10) Add SB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (11) Add SB Left Turn Lane (12) Install Traffic Signal 35 North Project Residential (1) Add EB Through Lane Access Rd Internal Loop Access Rd (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane ' (3) Add WB Through Lane (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane 100% (5) Add SB Left Turn Lane (6) Add SB Right Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Signs on EB and WB Approaches 36 Ynez Rd @ (1) Add EB Through Lane Service Commercial (2) Add EB Right Turn Lane ' Access II (3) Add NB Left Turn Lane (4) Add NB Right Turn Lane 100% (5) Add WB Through Lane (6) Add WB Left Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Signs on EB and WB Approaches 37 Ynez Rd @ (1) Add EB Right Turn Lane Service Commercial (2) Add 2 NB Through Lanes ' Access III (3) Add NB Left Turn Lane 77% (4) Add 2 SB Through Lanes (5) Add SB Right Turn Lane (6) Install Stop Sign on EB Approach ' 38 Ynez Rd @ (1) Add EB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane Service Commercial (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane Access IV (3) Add 2 NB Through Lanes 86% (4) Add NB Left Turn Lane (5) Add NB Right Turn Lane ' PA1998%N1620HEIR� 3- TRANSPCIRCULATION.DOC 5 -84 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS 2005 WITH PROJECT BUILD -OUT SCENARIO ID No. Intersection Improvements Pro (6) Add WB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (7) Add WB Left Turn Lane (8) Add 2 SB Through Lanes 86 %n t (9) Add SB Left Turn Lane (10) Add SB Right Turn Lane (11) Install Traffic Signal 39 Date St @ (1) Add EB Shared Through and Left Turn Lane Margarita Rd (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane (3) Add EB Right Turn Lane (4) Add 2 NB Through Lanes (5) Add NB Left Turn Lane (6) Add NB Right Turn Lane (7) Add WB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane 37% (8) Add WB Left Turn Lane (9) Add SB Through Lane (10) Add SB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (11) Add SB Left Turn Lane (12) Add SB Right Turn Lane (13) Install Traffic Signal 4a. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the build -out of residential and service commercial (Planning Area 12), the developer(s) shall implement the Roadway Improvement Needs identified ' below. Exhibit 10, Development Phasing Plan identifies the proposed timing for on -site Roadway Improvement Needs. A fair -share program for the improvements listed below with an * shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City and the developer. , • Construct Date Street between the Service Commercial Access Driveway and Margarita Road as a 6 -lane restricted access Urban Arterial. The exact alignment of Date Street (or Cherry , Street) needs to be coordinated with study efforts related to the proposed future Date Street (or Cherry Street) interchange. • Realign and extend Ynez Road from current terminus to just south of Date Street as a 4 -lane , Major. • Construct Ynez Road from the northern project boundary to just south of Date Street as a 4- ' lane Arterial. • Construct the North Residential Access Road between Date Street and the internal Loop ' Access Road as a 4 -lane road with provisions for a median left -turn lane at the intersection with Date Street. • Construct the internal Loop Access Road as a two -lane roadway with center two -way left turn lane. Curbside parking shall not generally be provided along the Loop Access Road except where required by the City of Temecula. The provision of curb parking shall consider right distance limitations that may occur alon the interior side of the Loop Access Road. P: 11998\8N1620MR�3-T SP CMCMAnON.DOC 5-85 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION • Bike lanes shall be provided along the Loop Access Road and all three project access roads ' from Date Street and Margarita Road. 4b. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the build -out of residential and service commercial ' (Planning Area 12), the developer(s) shall pay the current City's established DIF. In lieu of the DIF payment, at the City's discretion, the developer(s) may implement the off -site Roadway Improvement Needs identified previously in Mitigation Measures 3 and 4a above. ' 5. Consistent with the City's Circulation Element policies, the Harveston project shall implement a Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program (TMMP). related to the project's traffic impacts. This program would include a series of focused traffic studies that address the potential incremental ' traffic impacts and roadway system needs associated with subsequent development phases of the project. The EIR traffic study has identified the project - related traffic impacts and roadway system improvement needs at both build -out of the project and for Phase 1 of the project. This ' traffic study also provides a measure of the overall project's mitigation responsibilities. The intent of the Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program is not to re- define mitigation responsibility, but rather to assist in the refinement of area improvement needs and the timing of these improvements. The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program proposes that a focused traffic study be prepared prior to occupancy of development included in each of the future development phases (e.g, 2, 3. and 4). The focused traffic study would: 1) document ambient traffic volumes conditions; 2) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and 3) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed ih t each of the focused traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways, which would serve the new development phase and those critical off -site intersections ' and roadways that will provide np . mary access to the new development. Critical intersections / roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic .congestion (at the time the focused traffic study is to be performed). The focused traffic study findings would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. 6. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer(s) shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Department of Public Works that the project will allow for the facilitation (i.e., through ROW reservation) of the City's ultimate Circulation Plan. Traffic Demand and Systems Management Measures: In addition to the previously roadway and/or intersection improvements identified in Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 above, the following transportation system management / transportation demand management (TSM / TDM) measures are recommended to help reduce vehicular trips and traffic congestion: 7. Prior to the approval of a tentative map or development plan, the developer will forward tract maps to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for review and comment regarding bus turnouts, ' shelters, etc. Transit - oriented facilities and design features will be incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City and the RTA. 8. Prior to the approval of a tentative map for individual planning areas or development plan, the developer and City staff will review plans, especially for multi - family housing areas, commercial ' P1199MN16201UR�3 -0 SPCIRCULAnON.DOC 5 -86 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.3 TRANSPORTATION / CIRCULATION uses, and parks for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle ' facilities. 9. During the development plan review, major employers (i.e., more than 250 employees) who , locate their businesses within the project shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans in accordance with the Riverside County Transportation Commission/Westem Riverside Council of Governments (RCTC/WRCOG) guidelines. ' 5.3.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION t With the implementation of the project as proposed, including the Specific Plan Circulation Element and Mitigation Measures (including recommended roadway and intersection improvements), no significant ' traffic impacts will result from the proposed project under the Phase I — 2002 and Full Build -Out 2005 Scenarios. However, under the Full City Build -Out Scenario assuming the existing Circulation Element cumulative impacts will still be significant. No significant impacts to parking and emergency access are anticipated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. ' PM998 \8N 16201\EOd 3A ANSPCIRCOLAMN.D 5 -87 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY ' 5.4 AIR QUALITY ' 5.4.1 INTRODUCTION This report addresses the potential impacts related to air quality associated with the proposed Harveston Specific Plan project. The information contained in this report is consistent with the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis. The assumptions and air quality calculations prepared by EDAW, Inc. are provided in Technical Appendix C of this EII2. ' 5.4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS METEOROLOGY /CLIMATE ' The climate around the project site, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. The climate is characterized by moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity. The Pacific high pressure zone dominates the local ' weather patterns and creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore breezes, and little temperature change throughout the year. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The Temecula area is an interior valley of the South Coast Air Basin. Clouds and fog that form along the ' coast infrequently extend as far inland as the Temecula Valley, and usually bum off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern is associated with the warm season airflow across the populated area of the Los Angeles Basin which brings polluted air into the western Riverside County late in the afternoon. ' This transport pattern creates unhealthful air quality when the fringes of this polluted air mass extend into the Temecula area during the summer months. Precipitation is limited to a few storms during the wet winter season. Temperatures are normally mild with occasional extremes above 100 °F or below freezing. The ' annual mean temperature of 62 °F has little seasonal variation. In addition, winds control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal. Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. These inversions are characterized by seasonal differences. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine /subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts as a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is relatively clean, but becomes progressively more polluted as sources continue to add pollution from below without any dilution from ' above. A second type of inversion forms on cold early winter momings. These inversions are ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs and pollutants concentrate near their sources (i.e. roadways). Most of the air pollutants are confined to the air volume below the base of any inversion, or in a very shallow ' layer near the ground in the case of a surface inversion. ' P;199WN1620MIR09 AIR.QUA .DOC 5 -88 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin. This area is under the jurisdiction of the South ' Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The CARB is responsible for controlling motor vehicle emissions. In 1987, Senate Bill 151 became law, giving the SCAQMD significant authority. The law instructs the SCAQMD to develop new transportation control measures and to develop rules for indirect emission sources. Indirect sources are shopping centers, stadiums, and facilities that attract a large number of , vehicles. The SCAQMD is also required to develop further programs and regulations that will increase ride sharing and limit heavy -duty truck traffic on freeways during rush hours. Every three years, SCAQMD prepares an overall plan for air quality improvement. Each iteration of the plan is an update of the previous plan and has a 20 -year horizon. The SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), adopted the 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin in September, 1994. At that time, the South Coast Air Basin was designated as a non - attainment area (i.e., does not attain either Federal or State air quality standards) for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and fine particulate matter (PM by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB. Table 11 provides the ambient air quality standards and the relevant , harmful effects for each pollutant. Comparing the 1994 AQMP with the 1991 AQMP, the basic control strategy remains the same in many respects. There are some refinements proposed with this revision. For example, what were called Tier I measures in the 1991 AQMP are now referred to as short- and intermediate -term measures in the 1994 AQMP. Additionally, what were called Tier II and Tier III measures in the 1991 AQMP have been , consolidated, and are now referred to as long -term measures. Short- and intermediate -term emission reduction measures are those that can be adopted using currently available technological applications, statutory authority, and management practices. Such measures have been defined for stationary, mobile, and area source categories. Long -term emission reduction measures include already-demonstrated but commercially unavailable control , technologies and "on- the - horizon" technologies requiring advancements that can reasonably be expected to occur in the near future. This category also includes measures that require commitments for research, development, and widespread commercial application of technologies that may not exist yet, but may be 1 reasonably expected given the rapid technological advances gained over the past 20 years. The federal Clean Air Act recognized the need to develop new technology control measures. It specifically provided "extreme" ozone non - attainment areas and the necessary time to develop the new control measures [Section 182(e)(5)]. Many of the long -term emission reduction measures which rely on technologies that are not currently developed are considered as meeting Section 182(e)(5) requirements. P119 WN162011EIR�A -A .QUAI DO 5 -89 ' c >, s c •c 'o a U E c u T° Q - 0 E ° .0 an a u u . C iO a T Q y c a E r c T to Co E" y •O y 'y a Q . 0 u O b ti ti c1 > an E•- ° E o �� 0 s a E c s 3 E a o 0 L a o. to CL d� L O N >. N i v td U G O G U N E y U L - -- Q W U E CL E C O L b e u N W t U. �• 9 .O u 7 ti C q id cy an k _ ° L E n ,h U s O n c v as u u > c W c s c ' o a 4c .0 o n..E . o a = E ' w C T ap LC oar °ate °� 0.0 w a.? a� to ' - c CL v °' E = E'E m.° CIC , N o tc g L 1 E L y C O x v a E a o u L E o b s v G ti u u 'O a L u . 0 a ; y N w F L N 73 O G i o o c`u° us a°L c c '+ Y n' L u b0 y O U G to cc Lr� � O �.• w. N d U C E ro a aL7 =o aroc u ° s nr_ ° �E d a b otz C«, u, '> E c ``-' p u• ° - s °',o 0 F C O u C b u G a — U O ce o�o•v any E o d t h e u cJ n bn. a r 0 OL t K C ' U c N V1 F E E-= 4 E E 4 G c? R1 ro W E Q u CL w ° s E. on u�3 . c ' E C > x u °>° to � >> c> Z r F L L G C s E_ F L L t td- 7 M U a �E E t c °' °' a a °• os E A ° n > ou °�° > > > x c� O: ��• E E� a E E �� M M W F C a as a a �E ab t O O G1 A N n � d ^ ^ O o o C7O v� q F n A n N a � s W.••, y b :: o n v i u -o-i N v7 G. p " L � m � _ _ .- \ D f m k � � / § � § ) } \ � \( � e ; § , \\ � ))! & � 3 _ j} M\C k) § u ' Z § \\ t ± )( O < Al § a \/: E \ / 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARV EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY ' The 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based on the 1994 AQMP, and carries forward most of the innovative strategies crafted in that AQMP. The current AQMP places a greater focus on particulate ' matter (PM since this is the first plan required by federal law to demonstrate attainment of the federal PM ambient air quality standards. The Plan also updates the demonstration of attainment for ozone and carbon monoxide, and includes a maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide (NOS), as the South Coast Air Basin ' now qualifies for attainment of that federal standard. The 1997 AQMP proposes policies and measures to achieve federal and state standards for healthful air ' quality in the Basin and those portions of the Mojave Desert and Salton Sea Air Basins (formerly named the Southeast Desert Air Basin) that are under South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) jurisdiction (namely, Antelope Valley and Coachella Valley). The target attainment dates for Federal and State standards are depicted in Table 12. The AQMP was approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board of Directors on November 15, 1996. Federal Requirements In November, 1990, Congress enacted a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act intended to intensify air pollution control efforts across the nation. One of the primary goals of the 1990 amendments to the Clean ' Air Act (CAA) was an overhaul of the planning provisions for those areas not currently meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and attainment, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. In addition, the CAA requires the District to develop: a Federal Attainment Plan for Ozone (Ozone Plan) as t given in Section 182 (c)(2)(A); a post -1996 Rate -of- Progress Plan as required in Section 182(c)(2)(B); Ozone Attainment Demonstrations for the Los Angeles county portion of the SEDAB (Antelope Valley) and the Riverside Non - attainment area of the SEDAB (Coachella - San Jacinto Planning Area); and a PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) which incorporates best available control measures (BALM) for fugitive sources (referred to as the PM BACM SIP), as required by Section 189(b)(1)(B). ' State Requirements The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was signed into law on September 30, 1988. Through its many ' requirements, the CCAA serves as the centerpiece of the Basin's attainment planning efforts since it is generally more stringent than the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. TABLE 12 DRAFT 1997 AQMP TARGET ATTAINMENT DATES Pollutant Federal State Nitrogen Dioxide met met Carbon Monoxide 2000 2000 PM 2006 2010+ Ozone 2010 2010+ Source: SCAQMD, 1996 ' P: \I99E \BN 1520MR� 4- AMRQUA .DOC 5 -92 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY Key CCAA requirements that the District addresses in the 1997 AQMP are to: apply Best Available Retrofit , Control Technology; reduce non - attainment pollutants and their precursors at a rate of five percent per year, or, if this cannot be done, include all feasible measures and an expeditious implementation schedule; , achieve an average vehicle ridership during peak commute hours of 1.5 persons per vehicle by 1999; ensure no net increase in mobile source emissions after 1997; reduce population exposure to severe non - attainment pollutants (i.e., ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide for the Basin) according to a prescribed schedule; and rank control measures by cost - effectiveness and implementation priority. Additionally, state , law requires market -based programs proposed as part of the AQMP to meet specific design requirements. Finally, state law requires the plan to provide for attainment of the federal and state ambient air quality standards (Health & Safety Code Section 40462). ' EXISTING AIR QUALITY The air quality of the South Coast Air Basin is determined both by the primary pollutants added daily to the t air mass and by the secondary pollutants. Secondary pollutants, specifically ozone, represent the major air quality problems basinwide. The air quality of the project site is determined by primary pollutants emitted locally, the existing regional ambient air quality, and the specific meteorological factors which influence the ' site. Southern California has frequent temperature inversions, which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. ' Inversions may be either ground -based or elevated. Ground -based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground -based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs. High concentrations of primary pollutants may occur locally to major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversion dispersion is not restricted. Mixed inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion acts as a lid over the South Coast Air Basin. It is responsible for ' the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. There has been a significant improvement in air quality in the South Coast Air Basin over previous years' air pollution levels. Between 1976 and 1993, the number of days the federal standard was exceeded decreased by 47 percent. The calendar year 1993, for example, represents one of the cleanest years on record for the Basin. In that year, the federal standards were exceeded at one or more locations in the Basin on 147 days; however, this was still more frequently than any other area of the nation. ' Basinwide, of the federal and state standards which were exceeded in 1993, the ozone standard was exceeded most frequently, followed by carbon monoxide, and PM Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ' sulfate, and lead concentrations were below both the state and federal standards. Despite its improved air quality over the past years, the South Coast Air Basin has the worst ozone air quality in the nation, and is the only area designated as "extreme" non - attainment for ozone. In 1992, the ' Basin recorded the greatest number of exceedances of the federal carbon monoxide standard in the nation. PMIO levels are also very high compared to most other areas. The South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) currently maintains several monitoring ' stations in southwestern Riverside County. The monitoring station in Temecula is closest to the project site, but the station only measured a limited number of pollutants, and was closed in 1994 after only a short ' operating history. The nearest current SCAQMD station is located in Perris. This station also does not monitor the full spectrum of pollutants. Several pollutants are only monitored in the City of Riverside. Table 13 summarizes the last six years of Temecula and/or Perris data, supplemented as necessary by Riverside monitoring data for several pollutants. P \199WN 162011EMR5 AIR.QUA DO 5 -93 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY Table 13 identifies the number of days exceeding state air quality in the project area and indicates that ozone and PM are the air pollutants of primary concern in the project area. Ozone is a secondary pollutant and is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of the chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the project vicinity. Particulates are particles of dust, smoke, and minute droplets of liquids called aerosols. These are the particles that have the potential to do the greatest harm to human health because they can pass through the body's natural filtering system and become lodged in the lungs. Inhaled particulates reduce. lung capacity and may carry materials into the body. More localized pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, etc. are very low near the project site because background levels even in Riverside rarely exceed allowable levels, and there are almost no sources of such emissions near the project site. 1 P1199WN16101tEI UA- AIR .QUALDOC 5 -94 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY TABLE 13 NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS 1993 - 1998 l Pollutant/Standard 1993 1994 1 1995 1996 1997 1998 Ozone (Perris) State Standard 1 Hr> 0.09 ppm 137 125 107 95 0 38 Federal Standard 1 Hr > 0.12 ppm 73 59 36 31 0 8 Federal Standard 1 Hr > 0.20 ppm 3 0 1 0 0 0 Max. 1 HR Concentration (ppm) 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.08 0.15 Ozone (Temecula) State Standard 1 Hr > 0.09 ppm 10 -- -- -- Federal Standard 1 Hr > 0.12 ppm 1 - Federal Standard 1 Hr > 0.20 ppm 0 - Max. 1 Hr Concentration (ppm) 0.13 -- -- Carbon Monoxide State Standard 1 Hr >.20 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Standard 8 Hr > 9 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max I Hr Concentration (ppm) 4.0 11.0 9.0 9.0 7.0 5.0 Max 8 Hr Concentration (ppm) 2.7 7.3 6.5 5.0 5.8 4.6 Nitrogen Dioxide State Standard 1 Hr > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1 Hr Concentration (ppm) 0.13 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.19 0.10 Particulate Sulfate State Standard 24 Hr> 25 µg/m 0 0 0 t 15.1 15.7 22.8 140 0 0 Max 24 Hr Concentration ( m .9 13.1 10.1 Particulate Lead 1 Hr > 1.5 µg/m 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1 Month Concentration 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08 ' ( m Particulate Matter (PM -10) (Perris) 24Hr>50µg/m 27/60 26/61 23/60 20161 19160 14/53 24 Hr >150µg/m 0/60 0/61 0/60 0/61 0/60 0/53 Max. 24 Hr ( m 131. 112. 145. 87. 139. 98. Particulate Matter (PM -10) (Temecula) 24 Hr > 50 µg/m 216 ' 0 / 15 -- -- 24 Hr > 150 µg/m 0/61 0 / 15 -- -- -- - Max 24 Hr ( m 105. 48. 145. 87. 139. 98. ppm = parts per million parts of air by volume. µg/m = micrograms per cubic meter , * = Incomplete data year; no data during "smog season" = Temecula station closed in early 1994. Source: California Air Resources Board Air Quality Data, 1993 -1998 P:U99WN16201�M@ A- AM.QUI DOC 5 -95 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY �? PROJECT SITE Presently, the project site is currently undeveloped. The site currently generates no traffic and is assumed to generate negligible mobile and stationary source air emissions. 5.43 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Checklist Form, serves as a guideline of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. According to the Environmental Checklist, a project may be deemed to have a significant air quality effect if it will: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. C) Result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attenant under an applicable Federal or State ambiant air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration. For the purposes of this EIR, actions that violate federal standards for criteria pollutants (i.e. primary standards designed to safeguard the health of people considered to be sensitive receptors while outdoors) and secondary standards (designed to safeguard human welfare) are considered significant impacts. Additionally, actions that violate State standards developed by CARB or SCAQMD, including thresholds for criteria pollutants are considered significant impacts. Threshold criteria for determining environmental significance has been established by the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis. These are: SHORT TERM/CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS �i • 75 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds (ROC) • 100 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NO.) • 550 pounds per day for carbon monoxide (CO) • 150 pounds per day of PM LONG TERWOPERATIONAL EMISSIONS • 55 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds (ROC) • 55 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NO.) • 550 pounds per day for carbon monoxide (CO) • 150 pounds per day of PM P\1998IN16101EIR� .'A1 QUA DOC 5 -96 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY 5.4.4 PROJECT IMPACTS Impacts to air quality can be separated into short-term and long -term impacts. Short-term impacts usually are related to construction activities. During construction, the preparation of foundations and footings, demolition of existing structures, and building assembly will create temporary emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants throughout the project construction period. Long -term air quality impacts would result from two types of emissions sources, stationary and mobile. Stationary sources include the emissions produced from on -site energy use for heating, cooling, operation of electrical machinery, lighting, appliances, and other equipment that consumes electricity or natural gas. Mobile sources are emissions generated by vehicles. Secondary project - related impacts derive from a number of other small, growth- connected emissions sources. Such sources include, but are not limited to: evaporative emissions at gas stations or from paints, thinners, or solvents used in construction and maintenance or light industrial uses, increased air travel from business travelers, dust from tire wear and re- suspended roadway dust, etc. All these emissions points are , either temporary, or they are small in comparison to project - related automotive sources. Emissions increases from additional development within the airshed, even if they do not of themselves cause standards to be violated, should be considered cumulatively significant because they impede future regional attainment of clean air standards. The impacts related to the above criteria are discussed below. SHORT - TERM IMPACTS � The proposed project will have a short-term impact on air quality from construction activities. The grading of the project site, the construction of the buildings, and construction worker trips will create temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants throughout the project construction period. Pollutant emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing weather. In order to evaluate the project emissions, emission factors contained in the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis were utilized. In addition, assumptions for construction activities were obtained from the project applicant. The assumptions for construction activities i and short-term air quality calculations are provided in Appendix C of this EIR. The following outlines the anticipated impacts related to construction for the proposed project. Table 14 provides a comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQMD's emission thresholds of significance for each pollutant and identifies the percent by which the emission threshold is exceeded. Based on the emission factors and assumptions for construction activities, it is anticipated that the proposed project will exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for NO,. The daily exceedance of the threshold for NO, is a short-term air quality impact. Further, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non - attainment is considered under CEQA to be an impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures I through 6 is proposed to reduce this impact. Even with implementation of mitigation, this impact remains significant. P: \1"WN 16201\EIR� 4- AIRQUA .DO 5 -97 ,� r 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5 .4 AIR QUALITY Construction activities also generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from paints, solvents, asphalt, roofing tar and other coatings. The volatility of the materials used in asphalt is regulated by SCAQMD rule 1108, as are paints and solvents. Even water -based paint, however, still contains a high percentage of VOCs such that paint and other architectural coatings are the primary source of construction- related VOC emissions. Typical water -based paints contain around 2 pounds of VOC per ' gallon of paint (AQMD CEQA Handbook, Table A9- 13 -C). If painting one home requires 20 gallons of paint, about 40 pounds of VOCs will be released per house painted (inside and out). Painting more than two homes per day would cause the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day of VOCs to be exceeded. It would require approximately 730 homes painted per year (2 per day x 365 days per year) to create a significant ROG/VOC emission rate from the application of surface coatings. Exact project phasing is unknown, but the rate of new Harveston residential product absorption will likely be less than 730 units per year: Through compliance with SCAQMD regulations on paint volatility, and with the anticipated rate of ' project completion, ROG/VOC emission impacts will be less than significant. TABLE 14 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction Emissions Percent Exceeded Exceeds After =. SCAQMD Prior to After Threshold Mitigatio Pollutant Threshold Mitigation Mitigation ? n Carbon Monoxide 550 (lbs /da) 28 (Ibs /da) 28 (lbs /da) No Reactive Organic 75 (Ibs /day) 36 (lbs /day) 35 (lbs/day) No Com ounds Nitrogen Oxides 100 (Ibs /da) 325 (Ibs /da) 310 (Ibs /da) Yes 210% PM 150 (lbs /da) 135 (lbs /da) 1 73 (Ibs /da) No -- Source: EDAW, Inc., 2000 LONG -TERM IMPACTS The development of the proposed project will result in long —term air quality impacts. Long —term air quality ' emissions associated with the proposed project would result from two types of sources: stationary and mobile. Stationary sources include the emissions produced from on —site energy use for heating, cooling, operation of electrical machinery, lighting, appliances, and other equipment that consumes electricity or natural gas. Mobile sources are emissions generated by increased vehicular trips that will result from project implementation. The pollutants generated in the largest quantities would be CO, NO., and PMID. Reactive Organic Compounds would be emitted in smaller quantities. Long -term impacts associated with the proposed project's implementation are discussed under the heading Total Emissions later in this section. r PA19991NI62011EIR19.4- AIR.QUA DO 5 -98 r 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY Stationary Source Emissions Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources are generally large emitters with one or more emission sources at a facility with an identified location (e.g., power plants, refinery boilers). Area sources generally consist of many small emission sources (e.g., residential water heaters, architectural coatings) that are distributed across the region. Stationary emissions will be generated on -site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Off -site emissions will be generated due to electrical usage. The generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional off —site emissions. In order to evaluate the project emissions, the computer modeling program Urbemis 7G version 3.2 was utilized. This program was developed by CARB for use in determining both stationary and mobile source emissions. Projections of the proposed project's generated stationary source emissions are presented in column 1 of r Table 15. The calculations for the projections are contained in Appendix C of this EIR. Mobile Source Emissions Mobile source emissions will be generated by vehicle trips as a result of the proposed project. Mobile source or indirect emissions projected to result from implementation of the proposed project are vehicular pollutants released by increases in vehicular traffic. Several pollutants are directly emitted from motor vehicles. These include CO, NO„ PM and ROG. CO is the primary pollutant of major concern along roadways since air quality standards for CO along roadways are exceeded more frequently than the other pollutant standards. For the purpose of quantifying mobile source air quality impacts, the computer modeling program Urbemis 7G version 3.2 was utilized. The projections of the proposed project's generated mobile source emissions are presented in column 2 of Table 15. The calculations for the projections are contained in Appendix C of this EIR. Total Emissions Long -term total emissions generated from the project are the sum of the stationary source emissions and the mobile source emissions. The total emissions amount is then compared to the impact criteria for long -term emissions established by the SCAQMD for daily threshold emission levels. It should be noted that the air quality analysis of mobile source emissions is based on standards set forth in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis, with environmental significance determined accordingly. This worst -case analysis criteria assumes that the proposed project will generate increased traffic, and therefore, increased vehicle emissions. While it is obvious that the increased emissions will be generated in the vicinity of the project site, the increase will not necessarily constitute a net increase in emissions generated within the South Coast Air Basin. The totals for both vehicular and stationary source emissions generated by the proposed project are displayed in column 3 of Table 15. P: \1"WNI620PEMR A- AIR.QUA DO 5-99 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY TABLE 15 PROJECT 2005 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (POUNDS /DAY) Stationary Mobile Total Percent Sources Sources Emissions Exceeded Prior to I After Prior to After or!' After SCAQMD Exceeds After Emission Mitigation Mitigation Milo aeon Miti anon Mid afion Miti afion Threshold Threshold? Miff anon C arbon Monoxide 1,941 1,939 3,941 3,821 5.882 5,760 550 yes 947 %D itro en Oxides 58 53. 695 674 753 727 55 yes 1.212% articulates (PMIo) 264 264 226 219 1 490 438 150 yes 222% eactive Organic Gases 1.842 1,841 467 454 1 2,309 2,295 55 ves 4,073% 1 Source: EDAW, Inc., 2000 The proposed project contains a pedestrian circulation system (i.e., sidewalks and multi -use paths) that will help reduce vehicular trips to parks, schools and commercial uses, which will incrementally reduce vehicular trips within the project. In addition, the project will provide commercial uses that will help meet the convenience shopping needs of project residents, which will help reduce some off -site shopping trips. Providing one school site will also reduce off -site trips that would otherwise be required for parents to take their children to school. Based on the long -term emissions estimated to be generated by the proposed project, it is anticipated that the proposed project will exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for CO, NOx, PM10 and ROC. Table 15 provides a comparison of daily total emissions to the SCAQMD's emission thresholds of significance for each pollutant, and identifies the percent by which the emission thresholds are exceeded. The daily exceedance of the thresholds for CO, NOx, PM10 and ROG is a long -term air quality impact. In addition, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non - attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 7 through 11 is proposed to reduce this impact. Even with implementation of tnitigation, this impact cannot be reduced to a level less than significant. 5.4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS r The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in a short-term air quality impact due to construction activities. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non - attainment is considered under CEQA to be an impact. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be reduced by Mitigation Measures 1 through 6. The project's incremental impact cannot be reduced to a level less than significant. Through compliance with SCAQMD regulations on paint volatility, and with the anticipated rate of project completion, the project's incremental contribution to ROG / VOC impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in significant cumulative long -term impacts to air quality. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non - attainment is considered under CEQA to be an impact. Mitigation Measures 7 through I 1 will reduce this impact by reducing the proposed project's mobile and stationary source emissions. The project's incremental impact cannot be reduced to a level less than significant. PA199MN16201EIR�.4A .QUA .DOC 5 -100 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY 5.4.6 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES The City of Temecula requires all projects within its jurisdiction to conform with the SCAQMD Rule 403.2 and other applicable SCAQMD regulations regarding grading and construction. The SCAQMD Rule 403.2 includes standard conditions for construction activities to minimize the production of air pollutants including fugitive dust. 5.4.7 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in propertune. B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1) Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2) Spread soil binders; and 3) Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 2) Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; 3) Use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment. D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. , 2. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel - washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. F. Wash off trucks leaving site. Pi I99MN I6201�IRS AIR.QUAL DOC 5-101 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from storm water especially on super pads. 1 I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. J. Control off -road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. 3. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving. 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles be equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: A. Provision of rideshare incentives. B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. t C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. E. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. 6. Prior to the building / construction operations, individual contractors will commit in writing to the following: A. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non -peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 - 830 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM); B. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and C. Limiting lane closures and detours to off -peak travel periods. 7. Prior to the approval of tentative maps and/or development plans, developers will submit tract maps and/or street improvement plans to the RTA for review and comment regarding bus turnouts, shelters, etc. Transit - oriented facilities and design features will be incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City. City staff will focus on the review plans for commercial uses to provide transit related features. 8. Prior to the approval of a development plan, City staff will review plans, especially for commercial and park uses, for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ' P:\19 MN 1620 MM A- AIR.QUA .DOC 5 -102 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.4 AIR QUALITY 9. Prior to the approval of development plan, City staff will review plans for all service commercial t uses to encourage the provision of park and ride facilities. ' 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide proof to the City's Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its `fair- share' towards regional traffic improvement systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic , lights on streets impacted by project development. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits. the developer shall provide proof that energy saving features will be installed in project homes as required by the California Building Code. Features may include: solar or low- emission water heaters, solar roof tiles, energy efficient appliances, dual paned windows, low pressure sodium parking lights, etc. Additionally, residential products constructed by the home building division of Lennar shall incorporate "Comfort Wise" energy efficiency features. 5.4.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for construction activities. Further, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non - attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 are proposed to reduce this impact. This impact even with proposed mitigation cannot be reduced to a level less than significant. Through compliance with SCAQMD regulations on paint volatility, and with the anticipated rate of project completion, ROG / VOC emission impacts will be less than significant. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for CO, NOx, M PMIO and ROC. The daily exceedance of the thresholds for CO, NOx, PMIO and ROC is a long -term air quality impact. Further, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non - attainment is considered ' under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 7 and 11 are proposed to reduce this impact. This impact even with proposed mitigation cannot be reduced to a level less than significant. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in a short-term air quality impact due to construction activities. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non - attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be reduced by Mitigation Measures 1 through 6. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, remains significant. Through compliance with SCAQMD regulations on paint volatility, and with the anticipated rate of project completion, the project's incremental contribution to ROG / VOC impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in significant cumulative long -term impacts to air quality. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non - attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 7 through I1 will reduce the proposed project's incremental contribution to this impact by reducing the proposed project's mobile and stationary source emissions. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, remains significant. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted for the air quality impacts, which remain significant after mitigation. P:11998\8N 16201TMI A- AIR.QUA DOC 5 -103 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE 5.5 NOISE 5.5.1 INTRODUCTION The information contained in this section is summarized from the results of a technical report prepared by Giroux and Associates on February, 2000. The full text of the report is included in Appendix D of this EIR. 5.5.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUND CHARACTERISTICS Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters which describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure levels or energy content of a given sound wave. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound I level. The unit of sound pressure rationed to the faintest sound detectable by a keen human ear is called a decibel (dB), which is a logarithmic scale. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, a process called "A- weighting" written as dB(A) is utilized, which closely represent the range of human hearing. All further reference to decibels in this report written as "dB" should be understood to be A- weighted values. Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady -state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq). Due to the fact that community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called ' the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25 -28) for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use, included single family dwelling units. Since normal noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is about 20 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL allows the interior standard to be met without any specialized structural attenuation (dual paned windows, etc.). A noise level of 65 dB is also the level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with one's ability to carry on a normal conversation at reasonable separation without raising one's voice. A noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is thus typically the exterior noise land use compatibility guideline for new residential dwellings in California. Because commercial or industrial uses are not occupied on a 24 -hour basis, the exterior noise exposure standard for less sensitive land uses generally is somewhat less stringent. REGIONAL NOISE SOURCES In the Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, a noise exposure of 60 dB CNEL is shown as most desirable for residential uses, and noise exposures in the range of 60 -70 dB CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable for noise - sensitive residential uses after a careful analysis has been completed to insure that all noise impact mitigation has been implemented as fully as possible. Exhibit 31 shows the recommended State of California noise/land use compatibility guidelines as incorporated into the County P:U 998%N 1620 IUR�J- NOISE.DOC 5 -104 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE Noise Element. The City of Temecula uses the same standards as the County. Exhibit 31 shows that exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL are considered unacceptable for residences, schools, churches, health care facilities and other noise - sensitive uses. The 65 dB CNEL standard is therefore the significance criterion applied to the entire residential component of the project. LOCAL NOISE SOURCES ' Noise land use standards for proposed commercial uses between Ynez Road and I -15 are less stringent. Noise levels of 70 -75 dB CNEL are considered compatible with such uses. Because noise standards in Exhibit 31 are exterior standards, while most commercial uses are interior activities, noise is' generally not considered a siting constraint except for a few unique commercial activities (outdoor dining patios, outdoor retail, commercial fee -based recreational uses, etc.). The project noise impact analysis thus focuses on meeting the 65 dB CNEL residential standard for proposed development. Existing noise levels throughout the Harveston area derive almost exclusively from vehicular sources on the highways and secondary roads in the area. The area comprising the project is undeveloped and largely inaccessible. On -site noise levels are therefore low except close to existing project perimeter roadways. Measured noise levels in similar undeveloped environments in rural areas around Temecula typically record the following noise existing levels: Time Averaees Maxima Daytime 45 dB 65 dB Evening 40 dB 60 dB Night 35 dB 50 dB 24 -Hour CNEL = 45 dB - - - -- The existing 24 -hour exterior CNEL in local semi -rural areas of 45 dB(A) is equal to the interior CNEL required for residential development. ' The project site is 2.0 miles from French Valley Airport at its closest point. Aircraft noise constraints (i.e., 65 dB CNEL) are forecast to remain within the airport boundary at airport buildout. Occasional light aircraft single -event noise is audible on the project site. Single -event noise across the project site may increase as airport use intensifies for business jets or other noisier air traffic. The project site, however, is on the distant fringe of airport noise perceptibility. P5199WN 16201 EM .S- NOISE.DO 5 - 105 , i H arveston EIR ' Lennar Communities CNEL OR Ldn Value (dbA) LAND USES 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 e /t Reeaemial lend Ue : Snpb and Mumpb • :w .� • � Family D"knps ----- - ----------- Hlpheeyrrmnst COmmerml i --------------------------------------- ----- ----- ------ SchocW t:levroana Ubmim. Cluachr .. :•:::: - - - -- Recreational land Uses: Golf Cournaa. Open Space 1 Areas with waikirg, bicycling or horsebeek ddirtp .... . treila, water recreation areas whare motorized ... ' boeb and )et -ekn are prohibited .... ..... .' >::4; ' :,::::. • • .. • . Offm Pmfe® .el: Pewnw. Braeres, end Protaeefonal lleee Audltariu.k Cmsrt HWks. AmpNtheatera. Muek BNelb( May be rate wneitive or nobs preduaer) - —___• _____ ______ -------------------------------- 'III' IlF! Sports Arenas. Outdoor Spectator Sports F..dwrnW Lend Ueee: PlnyBmuM , N ighaadaetl :: •:::. feat Bell Parka. Motorrycie Parks, end YVWar Reoeetron Area. wnere skn e pmts arW fet-e -- - r wep ---- . . . _... '....:::: - COmmerciW land Uew: Retell cede. Movie Theaters. Ae aunnm Ben, Entsrt inment related commercial eceNtiaa. Sarvbea. -------------------------------- .... ...... ... ___ ____ ' Business Park: Wholesale, InduvtrieUMeraAacttain0, TreroporMon, CommuNoations and Utilities ......'.'.'.......... • .. : •:: NO . .......— ...........:.:....... l *.-� ------------------------ - - - - -- - - - -- - - [- �- �- - -- 50 55 60 65 70 75 BO as EXPLANATION OF LAND USE CONSEOUENCES. A NORMALLY AOG ABLE: wq w 2p C GE14ep 1Y UNhCC�TgaIE: N.w ce,r J mfr rwuceon rpulnm.na ..wmine .vuman. dacwry.a n,w cw.pun eanave owavucmn. ten a de.aoorne,d aor omee.d. aw.rd ewre a a. nose M1dW:pM M1ebrf D CONDI ACCEPTABLE: rx. meM muM d meee era nweee nos Ion con.vucm..r or ee..loom.m elw:a r eurmen HeMrr Wuue.e n IM arlpn. umertAxr mM oral a wWee ewraa area ones iaounvm M D LAND USE OISCW RAGm: Nea core eWnmsM1 a m4 W nraaE na.e ucaon a ewebwnam Mouq pwyrYr mlppWOn Irtum Inclueea In Te ral b umeruRart awlpn Source: GenetalP ]anPrOgram- 'Me City ofTemewla E xhibit 31 1 MM November 2000 Noise /Land Use Compatibility Standards 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE FUTURE NOISE LEVELS With continued areawide growth, the quiet noise conditions will increase to more suburban levels. Substantially degraded noise levels, however, will be confined to very narrow corridors along major arterial roadways. 5.5.3 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the most current CEQA Appendix Guidelines, noise impacts are considered potentially significant if they cause: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or. groundbome noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The term "substantial increase" is not defined by any responsible agency. The limits of perceptibility by ' instrumentation (sound meters) or by humans in a laboratory environment is around 1 dB. Under ambient conditions, people generally do not perceive that noise has clearly changed until there is a 3 dB difference. A threshold of 3 dB is commonly used to define "substantial increase." Typically, a less stringent standard is applied to temporary increase in noise. For purposes of analysis, a violation of general plan or noise ordinance standards, a +3 dB chronic increase, or a +10 dB temporary increase in noise exposure will be considered as potentially significant impacts. Because Harveston is just within two miles of French Valley Airport at its closest point, the airport noise impact significance criterion from the current CEQA guidelines could also apply. This criterion states: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been ' adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? "Excessive" relative to airports normally means the 65 dB noise contour. Single -event noise away from an airport, however, can also be intrusive even if the 65 dB CNEL contour remains close to the airport boundary. There are no adopted guidelines on what makes single events intrusive. For machinery-type sources, many jurisdictions consider short-term maxima of 75 dB by day, and 65 dB at night, as potentially disturbing to residential use. P: \1998 \SN16201\ MO .S NOISE.DO 5 -107 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE 5.5.4 PROJECT IMPACTS , Two characteristic noise sources are typically identified with land use intensification such as that proposed for Harveston. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will create short-term noise increases near the project site. With little development on the project site, initial heavy construction will not have significant noise impact potential. Such impacts may however, become important if construction occurs near already completed residential uses during later phases of project development. , Upon completion, project- related traffic will cause an incremental increase in areawide noise levels throughout the Temecula area. Traffic noise impacts are generally analyzed both to insure that the project does not adversely impact the acoustic environment of the surrounding community, as well as to insure that the project site is not exposed to an unacceptable level of noise resulting from the ambient noise environment acting upon the project. SHORT -TERM NOISE IMPACTS Temporary construction noise impacts vary widely because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in phases, initially by earth- moving sources, then by foundation and parking area ' construction, and finally for finish construction. Exhibit 32 shows the typical range of construction activity noise generation as a function of equipment used in various building phases. Earth- moving equipment are the loudest with noise ranging up to about 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Measurements have shown, however, that the noise emission levels in Exhibit 32 tend to be more associated with short-term rather than long -term (hourly or longer) noise exposure. Short term noise generation thus tends to be on the higher end of the ranges shown in Exhibit 32, while longer term exposure is at the quieter end of the noise spectrum. Emission from point sources of noise are attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance, or about 20 dB in 500' of propagation. The loudest earth- moving noise sources will therefore sometimes be temporarily detectable above the local background beyond 1,000' from any individual construction area. Within the complex topography of the project site, sight lines are often limited. Construction noise impacts are therefore, somewhat less than that predicted under theoretical maximum input conditions. r P\1999NSN1620[5 M\5.5- NOISE.DOC 5 -108 ' HarvesEon EIR Lennar Communities NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FT. 70 80 90 loo Compactors (Rollers) Front Loaders P a Backhocs 1 ❑ .s w - Tractors o Scrapers, Graders _ ' w � Pavers r• .o e U Trucks e Concrete Mixers 0 Concrete Pumps T y, n N Cranes (Movable) c 3 V Grants (Derrick) � 0 0. ' Pumps L` ❑ GCnCr1lO[S -. o ❑ A ' W Compressors I'ocumalic Wrenches 0 n e Jack Ilarmncrs and Rock Drills a v Pile Drivers (Peaks) w Vibrator V Saws i0 utre EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, Dec 31,1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment & Operations" Exhibit 32 November 2000 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE Temporary increases of +10 dB may occur when the noise attenuation effects of buffer, terrain or other obstruction, are insufficient to reduce heavy equipment noise to less than intrusive levels. This generally occurs when a new phase of development is built directly adjacent to completed and occupied homes. This potential impact can be somewhat minimized by completing rough grading of the entire site before any homes are occupied to preclude the operation of dozers and scrapers near people's homes or the school. Finish construction work (hammers, saws, air compressors, etc.) can be a temporary nuisance, but more from short term nuisance rather than from semi- continuous noise that would meet the +10 dB temporary impact significance criterion. If project mass grading activities are reasonably well separated from any occupied homes, temporary construction noise impacts are not likely to exceed the identified significance threshold. It is difficult to relate construction noise sources to a noise standard because they occur only during selected 1 times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor accompanying such disturbance usually leads to time limits on grading activities imposed as conditions on grading permits. The hours from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays are the times normally allowed for construction activities except in an emergency. These time limits are set as conditions on the project grading permits. ' LONG -TERM NOISE IMPACTS Long term noise concerns from the increased urbanization of the project site center primarily on mobile source emissions on Temecula area roadways. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA -RD -77 -108). The model calculates the Leq noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site - specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds, or noise barriers. Table 16 summarizes the 24 -hour CNEL level at 100' from the roadway edge along 104 area roadway segments for existing and future conditions with and without the project (detailed table is included in Appendix D, Noise Impact Analysis). "With project" impacts are analyzed resulting from both ' opening year (2001), interim buildout (2005) and full buildout conditions. Noise levels were calculated using traffic volumes supplied by the project traffic consultant (WSA; 1999). Because noise is analyzed relative to a weighted 24 -hour average standard while traffic volume projections have been made only for a.m. and p.m. 1 peak hour turning movements, the p.m. volumes were extrapolated into 24 -hour average daily traffic (ADT) using a reasonable peak hour to ADT ratio. An 8.8 percent p.m. peak hour factor was used as per the project traffic consultant's estimate (R. Kowshik, WSA; Dec. 22, 1999). For an acoustically "hard" surface, noise decays at 3 dB per distance doubling. For an acoustically "soft" site assumption (landscaping, vegetated surfaces, slight terrain irregularity, etc.), noise levels drop off at a rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. For the typical Harveston area roadway perimeter landscaping patterns, noise propagation is best described by acoustically "soft" conditions. Table 17 shows the calculated distance of the 65 dB CNEL contour from the roadway centerline using these drop -off assumptions. The distances in Table 17 are the setbacks that would be needed to achieve an acceptable (65 dB CNEL) exposure for noise- ' sensitive land uses if walls or other barriers were not used to accelerate the noise drop -off rate (detailed table is included in Appendix D, Noise Impact Analysis). Please refer to Exhibit 33, Traffic Noise Contour Map. ' It should be noted that "with project" impacts are less than significant except at the project site itself. Those impacts to the project will be mitigated to meet City of Temecula Standards. i P:\199M162011 MI 5- NOISE.DO 5 -110 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE TABLE 16 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS (CNEL @ 100' TO CENTERLINE [DBA]) 2001 2005 2020 Roadway / Link I Existing No Project I With Project I No Project I With Project Buildout Date Street Madison - I -15 NA NA NA NA NA 69.4 I -15 - Ynez Road NA NA NA NA 616 70.9 Ynez Rd - Margarita Rd NA NA NA NA 65.0 71.0 E. of Margarita Road NA NA NA NA 51.8 70.9 Winchester Road , Jefferson - I -15 69.1 68.3 68.5 70.5 70.7 70.4 1 -15 - Ynez Road 70.6 71.3 71.7 72.3 72.5 72.3 Ynez Rd - Margarita Rd 68.5 69.9 69.6 70.9 71.0 70.6 Mar arita - Rori au h 67.7 68.9 69.0 70.4 70.4 71.3 Rori aueh - Nicolas 67.7 68.9 69.0 70.4 70.4 71.1 Nicolas - Murrieta Hot Sp. 65.8 67.5 67.8 69.9 69.8 70.2 Ynez Road Elm Street - Date Street NA NA NA NA 60.8 69.9 Date St - Winchester Rd NA 65.2 66.3 63.8 67.0 67.8 WinchesterRd - Overland 68.5 68.9 69.1 69.2 69.7 70.6 Margarita Road ' Murrieta Hot S -Date St 61.6 66.4 67.0 65.7 66.9 65.1 Date St - Winchester Rd 64.3 66.4 67.0 65.7 66.9 64.2 Winchester - GIKearn 64.7 68.4 68.6 65.9 66.2 67.9 NA Not yet constructed 1 P: 1998%N16201TIR55.5- NOISEDOC 5 -111 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE ' TABLE 17 DISTANCE FROM CENTERLINE TO 65 DB CNEL CONTOUR (FEET) 2001 2005 2020 Roadway / Link I Existing No Pro I With Pro I No Project I With Project I Buildout ' Date Street Madison — I -15 NA NA NA NA NA 195 I -15 — Ynez Road NA NA NA NA 70 245 ' Ynez Rd — Margarita Rd NA NA NA NA 100 255 E. of Mar arita Road NA NA NA NA < 50 250 Winchester Road Jefferson-1-15 190 165 170 230 240 230 I -15 — Ynez Road 235 265 280 305 315 305 Ynez Rd — Margarita Rd 170 210 200 250 250 235 ' Margarita — Rori au h 150 185 185 230 230 265 Rori au h — Nicolas 150 185 185 230 230 255 Nicolas — Murrieta Hot Sp. 115 145 155 210 210 220 Ynez Road Elm Street —Date Street NA NA NA NA 50 215 Date St — Winchester Rd NA 105 120 85 135 155 Winchester Rd — Overland 170 185 190 150 160 145 Mar arita Road Murrieta Hot S — Date St 60 125 135 110 135 100 Date St — Winchester Rd 90 125 135 110 135 90 Winchester— Gl Kearny 95 170 175 115 120 155 ' NA Not yet constructed 1 ' PA1998%N 1620MIR� 5- NOISE.DOO 5-112 q a a a z U7 0.1 W M cC a Si a C •C m 0 N U u w U u ftftft E5 cy� I •� - -- I Wa� � F • �wl I �I I I I O a V Nt: I I I I o < z �U� I W ci in W QZ Ei Yj Ile t-k 1 G 10�/ ` ` O •'� / m atlON Z3NA oft_ ` o ` • W • fn � N ray' ♦' J� S131b1 Sb31A/` • ��• / � � 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE t The high future traffic noise environment in the project vicinity is almost exclusively due to cumulative growth. Along currently rural roads with negligible existing traffic volumes, future noise levels will be 16+ dB or more higher than in 2000. Table 18 shows the maximum noise level increases along existing roadways at locations where increases of +3 dB or more are predicted to occur. The project increment in each case is +0.2 dB or less. The maximum change in noise exposure from implementation of the Harveston project would occur in close proximity to the project site. Peak noise increases at site access roadways for Year 2005 conditions are as follows: Ynez Road (Date St. - Winchester) _ + 3.2 dB ' Margarita Road (Date St. - Winchester) _ + 1.2 dB The Ynez Road increase individually exceeds the +3 dB. "substantial increase" significance threshold. That ' impact, however, will only affect future residents within the project itself. All noise impacts outside the project boundary are less than significant. The project perimeter roadway noise exposure abutting proposed Harveston residential uses are shown in Table 19. Noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline at buildout would range from 64.2 dB CNEL along Margarita Road to 71.0 dB CNEL along Date Street. Any noise - sensitive usable outdoor space within 90 feet of Margarita Road, 155' from Ynez Road, or 255 feet from the Date Street centerline would require noise protection in order to meet the City of Temecula exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL. For an at -grade configuration, the noise attenuation achievable by a perimeter wall is generally 5 dB plus one ' additional dB per foot of wall height exceeding 5 feet. Table 20 calculates the wall height that would be needed to achieve an acceptable outdoor exposure. If grade separation exists between the building pad and the roadway centerline, the wall height requirement is somewhat reduced. As seen in Table 20, the only ' location where roadway noise requires a wall that is higher than 6 feet is along Date Street closer than 90 feet from the centerline to the property line/wall location. "Standard" perimeter walls of 6 feet high will meet the exterior standard along all other project exposure locations. 1 ' P51 99818N 162011EIR�J- NOISEDOC 5 -114 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE TABLE 18 MAXIMUM PREDICTED NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (dBA CNEL) Max. Max. Total Project A A ' Mwrieta Hot Springs Road: (Hancock Ave. - I -215) Ramps +8.6 + 0.2 Winchester Road: (N. of Murrieta Hot Springs Road) +5.3 +0.2 Nicolas Road: (Winchester - General Kearny) +3.6 ± 0.0 Jefferson Avenue: (Date - Winchester) +4.6 +0.2 Madison Avenue: (Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Jackson) +16.6 ± 0.0 Margarita Road: (Overland Drive - Solana Way) +7.2 +0.1 TABLE 19 PROJECT PERIMETER NOISE EXPOSURE (DB CNEL @ 100' TO CENTERLINE AND DISTANCE TO 65 DB CNEL FROM CENTERLINE) ----- 2005 - - - -- No Pro *. w/ProL Buildout t Date Street: Ynez - Margarita Road N/A 65.0 71.0 ' (N /A) (100') (255') Ynez Road: Date Street - Winchester 63.8 67.0 67.8 ' ( 85') (135') (155') Margarita Road: Date Street - Winchester 65.7 66.9 64.2 (110') (135') (90 PA199WN 162011EIR�.5- NOISE.DOC 5 -115 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE ' TABLE 20 SOUND WALL HEIGHT NEEDED TO ACHIEVE 65 DB CNEL ' Sound Wall Centerline - Distance Location: 50' 70' 90' 110' Date Street 9' 75 6' 5' Ynez Road 6' 5' <5' <5' Margarita Road 5' 5' None None r If exterior noise levels exceed 60 dB along the building facade, they also represent a potential constraint in ' meeting the interior residential noise standard of 45 dB CNEL. If the degree of "excess" noise: is small, then closing windows facing the street is adequate to achieve an acceptable interior level. As noise levels increase, upgraded windows or other features may be necessary. Any requirement to close windows to shut out noise in order to meet standards also entails a concurrent requirement to provide supplemental ventilation for each affected room. Building facade noise loading along each Harveston perimeter roadway will depend somewhat upon setback from the roadway centerline. A typical setback of 75 feet was assumed in assessing the likely building envelope noise level and the mitigation needed to meet interior standards in second -story bedrooms, as follows: ' Location Noise Level Mitigation Date Street 73 dB CNEL Good dual -paned windows, air conditioning Ynez Road 70 dB CNEL Dual -paned or extra thick single- parted windows, air conditioning Margarita Road 66 dB CNEL Slightly upgraded single -paned 1 windows, air conditioning Because these mitigation requirements will depend upon exact setback, building elevations and/or types of housing, exact building features can not be specified. However, none of the predicted noise loadings are so high as to present any technical difficulty in being mitigated to an acceptable interior noise level. PROJECT SITE AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE Project site aircraft noise exposure at Harveston from air traffic at French Valley Airport will be well below 60 dB CNEL. Aircraft noise levels of less than 60 dB CNEL place no development constraint on noise- , sensitive land uses. Levels of less than 60 dB CNEL require no acoustical studies prior to development. However, air traffic will be audible within the easternmost portion of the project closest to Margarita Road. Whereas the weighted 24 -hour average will be well within acceptable levels, single events may be early audible to homeowners. Single events are often more a source of complaint from aircraft noise than the daily average noise level. Please refer to Exhibit 34, French Valley Airport Map. This exhibit depicts the criteria P5199WN 162011EIR�.5- NOISE. DOC 5 -116 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE for height restrictions in the vicinity of the French Valley Airport. The proposed development is not subject , to these restrictions. An updated airport noise study is currently in progress. Preliminary results from the study confirm that the future 60 dB CNEL contour will remain in close proximity to French Valley Airport without affecting Harveston. Air traffic for the airport is concentrated east of Winchester Road such that the project site is on the side perimeter of airport audibility (Exhibit 34). Based upon the project's location relative to the airport, the County's airport noise consultant (D. Fitz; Coffman Associates; 1999) estimates that the loudest single event overflights will be from Stage II business jets. Based upon the project distance from the airport and its location relative to the normal flight track, the expected maximum noise exposure is 60 dBA (Lmax). The integrated noise "dose" for one total pass -by is called the single event level (SEL). An SEL of approximately 70 dBA is projected for the easternmost portion of the project site. The energy equivalent average noise level (Leq) during the overflight is calculated as follows: LEQ (dBA) = SEL (dBA) - 10 X LOG (TIME) The audible portion of the overflight (TIME) is around 60 seconds. During this overflight, the calculated LEQ would be: LEQ = 70 - 10 LOG(60) = 52 dBA Because the noise peak initially rises slowly and then peaks quickly before falling off again gradually, noise levels during the overflight above the LEQ level are of shorter duration than the time below the LEQ level. During a 60- second audible overflight, approximately 15 seconds will exceed 52 dBA, while 45 seconds will be below this level. , Structural attenuation of ambient noise ranges as follows: Single -Pane Windows Open 10 dB Single -Pane Windows Closed 20 dB Dual -Pane Windows Closed 25 dB Closed Dual Panes & Extra Upgrades 30 dB A desirable interior noise level during the daytime and evening is 45 dBA. Noisiest single overflights would produce the following interior levels at easternmost Winchester Hill homes as a function of structural features ' in the receiving dwelling (dBA): Structural Condition Lmax Le Single -Pane Windows Open 50 42 Single -Pane Windows Closed 40 32 Dual -Pane Windows Closed 35 27 Closed Duals & Extra Upgrades 30 22 P51 998%N 16201 EIRE .5- NOISEDOC 5 -117 x v w I } d a W J _ _ I' � a —L y. LL p LLJ el LL � �I I , �+ 1 r W \ IN S YiY r V cc 1 ; { r b /M� r r a 1 . W j q K• 1 Q W N v^ S o z 0 c F p a E [ 9 y W o °� w C5 o cc o " e itw„eaSS��to'�3P � F: -': °are: h C Q b O -p N O g, z 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE ' Closed single -pane windows would achieve an acceptable interior noise exposure of 45 dBA Lmax. The ability to close windows if the exterior is perceived as too noisy requires supplemental ventilation such as air conditioning. Air conditioning is anticipated to be a standard feature in project site homes. The single event aircraft noise is considered to be less than significant. ' 5.5.5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The high future traffic noise environment in the vicinity of the project is almost exclusively due to cumulative growth. Along currently rural roads with negligible existing traffic volumes, future noise ' levels will be 16+ dB or more higher than in 2000. The project contribution to the cumulative increase is imperceptible. The noise impact from all cumulative area growth is significant based on the previously identified significance criteria. However, that impact would occur without or with the proposed project. ' If the impact would occur without project implementation, and if the project contribution is de minimis the cumulative impact is also considered less than significant. 5.5.6. STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES The proposed Harveston project shall comply with the applicable codes and standards. Compliance with the City's standards shall assure regulations of nuisance noise during all phases of construction and operation of the project. 5.5.7. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. As specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94 -25, no construction may occur within one - quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours: A. 6:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., Monday through Friday. B. Before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:30 p.m., Saturday. ' C. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. ' 2. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps, generators or motors shall be allowed to operate within one quarter (1/4) mile of any occupied residence from 6:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. unless such equipment is surrounded by a ' noise protection earthen berm or solid barrier. 3. All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. 4. A noise mitigation analysis shall be performed, at the final map stage (for individual planning areas), for all future project noise - sensitive uses potentially exposed to noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL to verify that planned noise protection will meet City of Temecula standards. A. Exterior recreational areas shall be protected to achieve noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL. B. Interior living areas shall be protected to achieve noise levels of less than 45 dB CNEL. ' P:V9 MNIQOIEIR�.5- NOISE.DO 5 -119 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE Substantial perimeter walls separating rear yards from the roadway right -of -way along Date , Street are anticipated to be necessary. Precise wall geometrics shall be determined once exact setbacks and building pad grades are established. Moderately upgrading window treatments shall be necessary along Date Street in upstairs bedrooms closest to the roadway. Minor acoustical upgrades shall be needed along Margarita or Ynez beyond simply closing windows to shut out roadway noise. The building code requires that supplemental fresh air ventilation be provided in rooms where window closure for traffic noise protection is necessary. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation shall be conducted in a ' supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filed with the appropriate agency. 5.5.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The project noise impact study indicated that off -site noise impacts will be individually and cumulatively less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure 4 and the rear yard perimeter protection for usable outdoor space (yard, patio, spa, etc.) for proposed homes along Date Street, Ynez Road, and Margarita Road will reduce the impacts to less than significant. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures 1 -3 listed above, for temporary noise impacts emanating from construction activities, will reduce the short-term impacts to a level of less than significant. Lastly, the noise from the French Valley M Airport is considered to be less than significant. P: \1"MN16201\ M%5.5- N01SE.D0C 5-120 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.6.1 INTRODUCTION ' Geotechnical assessment reports of the site were prepared by Converse Consultants on October 8, 1990 and February 20, 1998. Additionally, an updated report was prepared on June 21, 1999. Findings of the reports are summarized below. The full text of the reports are included in Appendix E of this EB2. In ' addition to the field investigations performed by Converse, extensive literature and report reviews were conducted in preparing the geotechnical reports. ' 5.6.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS In general, the subject property is in an undeveloped state. Topographically, the site consists of low rolling hills with southwest - trending drainages. Maximum relief is about 100 feet. Site vegetation consists of native weeds, shrubs, and grasses. Several unimproved roads and trails transverse the site. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Harveston site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are generally characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys bounded by faults. ' The site is located within an area underlain by granite bedrock, commonly referred to as Perris Block. The site is bounded by the Elsinore Fault to the west, the San Jacinto Fault to the east, and the San Gabriel Fault to the northwest (English, 1926). The Perris Block has been referred to as the Perris "peneplain" due to the presence of numerous flat valleys. Locally, the Perris Block contains ranges of ' hills up to 1,000 feet of relief with respect to the adjacent valleys. SITE GEOLOGY Earth materials observed during the course of the geotechnical investigations were the Pauba Formation, landslides, older alluvium, colluvium, younger alluvium and artificial fill. Several landslides were ' documented at the northeast portion of the site. Areal distribution of the earth materials is shown on the geological maps. These materials are described below from geologically oldest to youngest. (Please refer to Exhibit 35, Geologic Map of the Site). ' Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation of late - Pleistocene geologic age (Mann, 1955) underlies the site. Bedrock structure is poorly developed, but generally trends northeast. Older Alluvium. Older alluvium soils occur within much of the site. It is commonly overlain by a variable thickness of younger alluvium and topsoil. These materials are primarily silty and clayey sands ' with minor amounts of sandy clay. ' P:" 99MN 1620 IE1R�.6GEO6 01M.000 5 -121 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Younger Alluvium. Younger alluvium soils occur in drainages throughout the site. These materials are mainly sands, silty sands and clayey sands that are moist, loose, and contain variable amounts of organic matter. The alluvium is at least 15 feet thick in the Santa Gertrudis Creek flood plain area located on the southern portion of the site. Colluvium. Colluvial soils locally covers bedrock throughout the site with a thin veneer near the top of ' the ridges, thickening at the base of the natural slopes. These sediments consist of fine grained clayey and silty sands and silty claystone. Artificial Fill. Both engineered and non - engineered fill soils were observed on the site These soils consist of silty and clayey sands. Engineered fill was placed to construct Margarita Road, Date Street, and Ynez Road and during construction of the commercial development located in the southwest corner , of the site. Non - engineered fill was placed to construct a small agricultural reservoir near the southeast edge of the site and several dirt roads that traverse the site. REGIONAL FAULTING There are no known active faults projecting towards or through the site, nor is the site situated within a currently designated State of California Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone. As shown in Exhibit 36, Regional Fault Map, the nearest known active fault (displacement within the last 11,000 years) is the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately one (1) mile to the southwest. The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault is located about 0.8 miles north of the site. The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault is not currently classified as active by the State of California. SITE FAULTING (PHOTOLINEAMENTS) ' Kennedy (1977) identified three (3) photolineaments trending through the site. Extensive field investigations were conducted by Converse, which concluded the following: , Photolineament 1 is not fault related. Its trend closely corresponds to regional bedding (layers in the sedimentary rock). It was originated as a result of differential erosion along bedding planes. Site reconnaissance for Photolineament 2 disclosed the presence of several possible fault breaks in an off -site road cut just north of northeast site perimeter. However, the faults are not considered active. The ' fault breaks were observed over a distance of about 100 feet within the roadcut. The fault breaks trend approximately north -south and dip steeply to the east and west. PA1998\AN16201 &GEO8 015.00C 5 - 122 , Ln fL cn � p "Y 'A c n v > > U Ir > F"'1 O � •C v u " 'O � W m e a ° C7 -a - ia11�000 .t%L SAR � •t �n V •- I � y r V M ry I' l I �'�_�• ,I �1))) "'" � 1 1� '' 111. •� A ' li l l I I� ,O •v -. f ��'f c (1 0(111 I �� V f I A• N w i \ go , \ \ L ' ♦ �� 3 .. a flt Nr 7 z it � � Harvesion EIR ' 4ennar Communities Ic 12 � 9 J.•;• •� a•7f N- �J�7H , •DOS �` SAfV .BERNARDIN 4HpgF s AH F C, W y RIVERSIDE o / FAULT�� . � PALM SPRINGS 4f 0040 \ p . EWPORT BEACH Fp'r = 4 IYO,- S TE G \ - q � 09F �� .• \ p HF FAULT 'I \ SAN ONCIFRE I CEANSIDE 8 MESA GRANDE r OV �.. � I F .\ - ' 0 10 20 APPROX. SCALE'IN FEET SCALE: 1:780,000 �* cgome ..�rooin� � .:gxne� Exhibit 36 N.T.S. � November 2000 Reigonal Fault Map 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.6 G E O LOGY AND SOILS Photolineament 3 is not fault related. Its orientation is within the range of regional bedding (layers in the sedimentary rock) and is probably controlled by the underlying bedrock structure. The joints observed ' were the result of normal weathering processes. SEISMICITY ' The Harveston project is situated in a seismically active region. As in most areas of Southern California, the site may be subjected to ground shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with nearby and distant faults. Seismic activity emanating from active faults may generate moderate to strong ground shaking at the site. ' According the California Building Code (1994), the project site is situated in Seismic Zone 4. Major damage may occur within this zone. Seismic Zone 4 also includes those areas that lie within a zone of major historic earthquakes and recent high levels of seismicity. For structural design purposes, the seismic ground motion is usually associated with either a Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) or a Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE). The maximum credible earthquakes and associated seismic parameters for nearby active faults are presented in Table 21 located in the Project Impact Section 5.6.4. N Secondary Effects of Seismic Activitv Secondary effects of seismic activity include surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, differential settlement of structures, ground lurching, landsliding, earthquake- induced flooding, seiches, and tsunamis. Surface Fault Rupture. The site is not located within a currently designated State of California ' Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on review of existing geologic information, no known active fault zone crosses or projects towards the site. Liquefaction. An area adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek, located south of the site, and an area adjacent to I -15, located west of the site, were mapped as areas that may be susceptible to liquefaction. Based on the study (conducted onsite, on the floodplains of the creek, by Converse Consultants, 1988) the area ' located adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek has a layer of alluvial soils, approximately one (1) to two (2) feet thick, which may be prone to liquefaction. The remaining portion of the site is considered non - liquefiable due to the presence of fine - grained soils, shallow bedrock, or absence of groundwater. Differential Settlement The site is underlain by mostly granular soils. These soils are well graded and in dense conditions. Such soils are not susceptible to significant differential settlement during seismic ' shaking. Lateral Spreading. Natural and fill slopes within the site, in their existing conditions, may experience ' some lateral spreading in the event of a strong ground motion. Tsunamis. Tsunamis are tidal waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement. Tsunamis are not considered a potential hazard for the project site. ' PAI 99918N 1620 I1E1M GEOB 0[ ,DOC 5 -125 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Seiches. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Seiches are not considered a potential hazard for the project site. Earthquake- Induced Flooding. This type of flooding is caused by failure of dams or other water- ' retaining structures as a result of earthquakes. The nearest reservoir to the site is Lake Skinner, located approximately six (6) miles northeast of the project. Portions of the project site are located within Lake ' Skinner's dam inundation area. The potential hazard emanating from this phenomenon is considered very low. FLOOD HAZARDS Because the Santa Gertrudis Creek is situated along the southern boundary of the site, a potential for , flood related hazards currently exists on the project site. The creek alignment has been improved and is a lined channel near Margarita Road. Please refer to Section 5.7 of this EIR for a more detailed discussion of hydrology /drainage issues. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered in the subsurface explorations. No evidence of seeps, springs, or other signs of high groundwater was observed at the site. However, at the time of the subsurface exploration for liquefaction evaluation (1988), perched zones of water were encountered in several borings in the vicinity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Highest groundwater levels in the borings ranged from 16 to 24 feet below the surface. Irvine Consulting Group, Inc. (1989) reported groundwater at depths ranging from 32 to 38 feet below the surface within the western portion of the site. Subsurface Variations Based on the results of the subsurface exploration, variations in the continuity and nature of subsurface , conditions are anticipated at the site. Variations in groundwater levels can also be expected from seasonal changes. 5.6.3 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE ' Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Checklist Form, serves as a guideline of ' consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. According to the Environmental Checklist, a project may be deemed to have a significant geology and soils effect if it will: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risks of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo ' Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology ' Special Publication 42). ii. Strong seismic ground shaking iii. Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction P:" 998%N 162011E 5.6GEO& OIMDOC 5 - 126 , 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1 iv. Landslides b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil ' c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse ' d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the California Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. ' e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. ' 5.6.4 PROJECT IMPACTS Various field and laboratory investigations were performed to determine any potential impacts that may arise as a result of project implementation. The following summarizes the conclusions of the investigations SITE FAULTING (PHOTOLINEAMENTS) ' Three photolineament analyses were conducted to reveal the potential of site faulting. Based on the observations and results of the fault study, the photolineaments were interpreted to be the result of normal weathering process and not due to surface fault rupture. Therefore, no impacts related to faulting ' exist on -site. SEISMICITY The site is located in a seismically active region. An analysis was conducted by utilizing the computer program EQFAULT developed by Blake (1997) for various active faults within a 100 -km (62 -mile) ' radius from the project site. Maximum credible earthquakes and associated seismic parameters for nearby active faults are summarized in Table 21, Seismic Characteristics of Nearby Active Faults. The faults listed in Table 21 are considered faults capable of generating significant ground motions at the site (a ' ground acceleration of 0.1 g or greater). Based on the results of the above analysis, the project site may experience a peak horizontal ground acceleration on the order of 0.40 g, where g is the acceleration due to gravity due to the movement on the Wildomar branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone. The nearest faults to have the most significant seismic impact on the project site are considered to be the Wildomar Branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone and to a lesser degree, the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault (currently not classified as an active fault by the State of California and County of Riverside and therefore not listed in the following ' table). ' PA1"WN 16201 EM .&GEOB50O .DOC 5 -127 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTO EIR 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS TABLE 21 SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NEARBY ACTIVE FAULTS Maximum Peak ' Approx. Distance to Assigned Maximum Horizontal Ground Fault from Project Credible Earthquake Acceleration at ' Fault Name- Branch Site (miles) Magnitude M. Project Site ( ) San Jacinto -Anza 20 7.2 0.13 ' San Jacinto -Casa Loma 20 6.9 0.11 Elsinore - Julian 14 7.1 0.17 Elsinore - Wildomar 1 6.8 0.40 , Elsinore -Glen Ivy 13 6.8 0.15 Source: Converse Consultants (1999) ' Notes: Moment Magnitude M, of earthquake expected for rupture of entire fault length, estimated with slip -rate dependent empirical relations between seismic moment Mo and fault length and assuming the empirical relationship Log Mo =1.5 M w + 16.1 (Hanks and Kanamon, 1979). A historical analysis was also developed which revealed that the site has experienced a calculated maximum ground acceleration of about 0.14g during a 7.0 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter 18 miles northeast of the site along the San Jacinto Fault in 1918. Secondary Effects of Seismic Activitv ' The following discusses the site - specific impact potential for each of these seismic hazards: , Surface Fault Rupture. Since no active faults on present on -site, the potential for surface fault rupture resulting from the movement of the nearby major faults is low. No impacts are anticipated. ' Liquefaction. The proposed project grading of up to 25 of compacted fill in areas adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek and I -15 will mitigate the liquefaction potential. Additionally, the proposed grading as t required by Mitigation Measure 2 will place up to 25 feet of compacted fill over the layer of alluvial soils, 1 to 2 feet thick, which may be prone to liquefaction, therefore mitigating the potential liquefaction impact. , Differential Settlement The site is underlain by mostly granular soils. These soils are well graded and in dense conditions. Such soils are not susceptible to significant differential settlement during seismic shaking. No impacts are anticipated. Lateral Spreading. Natural and fill slopes within the site, in their existing conditions, may experience ' some lateral spreading in the event of a strong ground motion. With the implementation of applicable codes and Mitigation Measures 1 and 4 the potential impact would be reduced to a level of less than significant. P: \1"WN 16201EHZt .6GE0850n3. DOC 5-128 , 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Tsunamis. Tsunamis are not considered a potential hazard for the project site due to location of the site. No impacts are anticipated. ' Seiches. Seiches are not considered a potential hazard for the project site due to the location of the site. No impacts are anticipated. ' Earthquake - Induced Flooding. The nearest reservoir to the site is located six (6) miles northeast of the project, and portions of the project site are located within Lake skinner's dam inundation area. The t potential hazard emanating from this phenomenon is considered very low. The potential impact is considered less than significant. ' FLOOD HAZARDS The proposed grading along Santa Gertrudis Creek includes raising existing surface grades 25 to 30 feet. This grading will raise the ground surface approximately 40 feet higher than the creek bottom, therefore reducing the potential for flooding of future development. Please refers to Section 5.7 of this EIR for a ' more detailed discussion of hydrology / drainage issues. GROUNDWATER Subsurface exploration on the site revealed the presence of the highest groundwater levels ranging from ' 16 to 24 feet below the surface. Therefore no impacts from high groundwater levels are anticipated. Subsurface Variations Based on the subsurface exploration, some variations in groundwater levels may be expected, however; because of the low groundwater levels, impacts are not anticipated. EARTAWORK/SITE GRADING Site grading is expected to consist of cuts, removals and fill operations to prepare building pad areas. Cuts on the order of 65 feet in depth are proposed. Maximum fill thickness is expected to be 40 feet. Grading is also expected to include backfill for utility trenches. Loosely backfilled exploratory trenches located throughout the site and any existing undocumented fill will require overexcavation and recompaction prior to the placement of the structural fills. Proposed fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Appendix D of the October 8, 1990 geotechnical study, located in ' Appendix E of this EIR. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will ensure that proposed recommendations for earthwork grading and construction are reflected on the Tentative Map. P: "998%N1620MR�.GGEOB:S0IIS. 5 -129 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Subdrains Based on the findings of the geotechnical investigation, placement of canyon subdrains are not presently ' anticipated to be needed (canyon subdrains are placed to control subsurface groundwater buildup beneath the fill). However, this finding should be verified based upon rough grade plans and conditions exposed during grading. Expansive Potential Fill soils derived from the onsite alluvium, which will be placed in proposed building areas may have a 1 moderate expansion potential if not adequately blended with the sandy material. Clayey siltstone and silty claystone layers in the Pauba may have high expansion potentials, and such materials could be ' exposed at final grades in areas of cut pads. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce impacts related to expansive potential to a level less than significant. Permanent Cut Slopes The maximum vertical height of proposed permanent cut slopes is about 40 feet. Based on the ' geotechnical study, cut slopes in the encountered materials not exceeding 45 feet in height and cut no steeper than 2:1 have a calculated factor of safety greater than 1.5. Cut slope ratios should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). A primary concern for cut slopes on this site is the high potential for erosion of the sandy material, and the resulting surficial instability. As required by Mitigation Measure 2 geologic observation of all cut slopes will be conducted during grading to observe if any adversely oriented planes of weakness (i.e. claystone or siltstone beds) are present. Additionally, as required by Mitigation Measure 2 structures shall be set back from the top and toe of slopes in accordance with ' geotechnical recommendations contained in Appendix E. Landslide removals in the north portion of the site may result in converting proposed cut slopes to compacted fill slopes. Therefore, impacts related to, permanent cut slopes are anticipated. However, Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 will reduce impacts related to permanent cut slopes, potential surficial slope instability and slope maintenance problems to less than significant levels. Stabilization Fills The geotechnical field investigation did not indicate any adversely oriented planes of weakness that would require construction of stabilization fills. Final verification of conditions should be determined during grading geologic observations. Shrinkage and Subsidence Considering the quantities of earthwork proposed with the implementation of the project's grading plan, , some soil shrinkage variability from ravine to ravine, and hill to hill should be anticipated. Based on the geotechnical consultant's test results, shrinkage and subsidence are estimated as follows: ' Top Soils and Alluvium and Colluvium. Top soil, alluvium and colluvium are expected to shrink on an average of approximately 12% by volume, with variations ranging from 6% to 20 %. Subsidence in ravines due to earthwork activities may range up to 0.2 foot. PAIR NN 162011EIW.&GEOd OI S.DO 5 -130 , 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.6 GEO AND SOILS Pauba (Bedrock). Shallow porous Pauba bedrock may shrink from negligible to 10% by volume when ' properly recompacted. Porous, weathered Pauba is not anticipated to be thicker than 1 to 3 feet below the bedrock surface. ' Deeper, dense Pauba bedrock is expected to shrink less. Shrinkage ranging from negligible to 6% is anticipated in most of the dense Pauba bedrock. Subsidence of the exposed surface in deep cuts within the Pauba bedrock is expected to be negligible. ' Considering the quantities of earthwork proposed, some shrinkage variability from ravine to ravine, and hill to hill should be anticipated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 will reduce impacts related to ' shrinkage and subsidence to a level less than significant. STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION ' Appurtenant Facilities ' It is anticipated that residential lots will be customized, including home additions and construction of garden walls, pools, landscape ponds, retaining walls, general regrading, and modifications of landscaping. Any of these modifications may adversely change the foundation conditions, lot stability, and/or adversely affect adjacent lots. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 will reduce impacts related to appurtenant facilities to a less than significant level. Soil Corrosivity ' A bulk soil sample obtained from the subsurface exploration was tested for resistivity, pH, and soluble sulfate and chloride content. A very low chloride content and mild resistivity were also measured, which ' would indicate low corrosivity. Therefore, impacts related to soil corrosivity are not anticipated. However, Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 will be implemented to ensure impacts related to soil corrosivity are less than significant. 5.6.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Generally, geotechnical issues are site - specific and will be limited to within the development boundaries of the Specific Plan site; therefore, no cumulative geotechnical impacts are anticipated. ' 5.6.6 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES Application of the following standard conditions and uniform codes will reduce a number of potential impacts to a level of less than significant: ' • UBC, City Building Codes, and applicable seismic standards will reduce ground - shaking and related seismic effects to a level of less than significant. ' P5199WN16201,EIR6.6- GEOH OiM.DO 5 -131 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I ARVESTON EIR 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS • UBC, City Building Codes, and geotechnical report requirements will reduce impacts related to ' liquefaction and seismically- related soil conditions to a level of less than significant. • City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to disposal of excavated material, to a level of less than significant. • UBC or City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to unstable cut and fill slopes to ' a level of less than significant. • Cal OSHA Construction Safety Orders and City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to trench wall stability to a level of less than significant. • City grading and Buildings Codes will reduce impacts related to erosion of graded areas to a level of ' less than significant. • City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to alteration of runoff, to a level of less ' than significant. • City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to unprotected drainage ways to a level ' of less than significant. • City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to increased impervious surfaces to a level of less than significant. 5.6.7 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. During staff review of the tentative map for individual planning areas, an updated ' geotechnical /geologic report shall be prepared to include any necessary revisions to earthwork, foundation, design, and construction recommendations. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the recommendations contained in Section 6.0 of the ' geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of this document shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Earthwork activities include grading removals, subdrains, permanent slopes, temporary slope excavations, utility trench backfill, and site drainage. Additional recommendations are presented to mitigate the potential impacts related to liquefaction, expansive soil potential, and shrinkage and ' subsidence. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the recommendations contained in Section 7.0 of the ' geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of this document, shall be incorporated into the structural design of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Structural design activities include: foundation design; retaining walls; slabs -on- grade; and ' appurtenant facilities. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, it shall be proven to the Department of Building and -� Safety that all structures shall be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of P U99WN 16201 5 -132 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS the California Building Codes or Structural Engineering Association of California to promote safety in the event of an earthquake. 5.6.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above and compliance with standard federal, state, and local building codes, potential impacts associated with seismic activity and other soil / geologic hazards will be reduced to levels less than significant. 1 c i P:" 998%N 1620 1 �EIR�.SGEO8 OI .DOC 5-133 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE 5.7.1 INTRODUCTION A hydrology and drainage study, dated September 6, 2000 and revised October 4, 2000 was prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, to develop a conceptual master plan of drainage for the , Harveston proposed project and to identify potential adverse impacts (if any) resulting from the probable increase in storm water runoff. Findings of the report are summarized below. The full text of the report is included in Appendix F of this EIR. In preparing the report, previous hydrology studies prepared in association with past development proposals and proposed infrastructure have been reviewed and incorporated as necessary. 5.7.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project is comprised of range land with moderate relief characterized by broad canyons draining from east to west to Interstate 15. Existing vegetation is predominantly native grasses with fair to poor coverage, separated by numerous dirt roads and trails. There is little evidence of erosion due to the moderate relief with slopes generally ranging from 5 percent in the upper canyon areas to less than 1 percent near Interstate 15. Hillside slopes range from about 50 percent or less than 10 percent. Based on the hydrology analysis, the existing downstream storm facilities are adequate to serve the current watershed. Debris may tend to reduce the capacity of the downstream system; however, debris production potential from the existing site is low, and there is some debris storage area available upstream of the existing drainage pipes on -site. HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS Two hydrology studies have been completed to assess the change in hydrologic characteristics before and after site development. The existing condition study is shown on Exhibit 37, Existing Condition Hydrology Map. The proposed condition study, presented in Exhibit 38, Proposed Drainage Area, assumes ultimate development of the watershed, both upstream of the site and within the project limits. The ultimate condition hydrology study includes off -site flows from upstream development within the Warm Springs Specific Plan area. The location and magnitude of these flows entering the project site has been noted on Exhibit 38. The hydrology studies were completed using the Rational Method, as described in the Riverside County Hydrology Manual, dated April 1978. In the studies, discharges have been computed for 10 and 100 year hypothetical storm return frequencies. Rainfall used in the studies was taken from the Riverside County Hydrology Manual for the "Murrieta- Temecula and Rancho California" areas. Basin assumptions and criteria for use in runoff computations are provided in Appendix F of this EIR. EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES There are no major drainage improvements on -site, with the exception of the completed improvements within Margarita Road and along Santa Gertrudis Creek. Storm water collects in one of two primary natural drainage courses and flows westerly to Interstate 15, intercepted by concrete drainage pipes. There are four series of drainage pipes at Interstate 15 serving the two primary drainage courses and two PA 199MN 162011EMt J -HV RO.D 5 -134 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE smaller watershed areas (please refer to Exhibit 37, Existing Condition Hydrology Map). Table 22 below, summarizes the drainage pipe sizes and the estimated capacity of each of the pipes. TABLE 22 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES Downstream Existing Drainage Pipe Inlet Capacity System Capacity Discharge System Size(s) (cfs) (cfs) (Q100) A 24" 39 30.7 27.1 B 66" and 48" 470 540.0 266.7 C 24" 36 N/A 35.7 D 84" and 54" 700 630 366.7 E 42" 85 H 36" 60 Source: RBF 1 *Systems E, Fl, F and H drain into Santa Gertrudis Channel. System A: System A is a 24" RCP, which serves the northwesterly corner of the site. System A discharges to drainage pipe A, shown on Exhibit 37. � System B: System B consists of 48" and 66" pipes, which begins along the northeasterly project boundary, continuing southwesterly across the site, discharging at drainage pipe B (please refer to Exhibit 37). System C. System C is a 24" RCP that is intercepted (along with Systems A and B) by a storm drain system paralleling Interstate 15. System D: System D consists of 84" and 54" pipes. The existing storm drain on Margarita Road begins at the intersection of Margarita Road and Date Street, continuing southeasterly along Margarita Road and outlets into the Santa Gertrudis Channel. System D begins at the northeasterly portion of the site. � System E: System E is an existing 42" RCP which currently serves about 30.56 acres adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek. The lateral was constructed as a portion of the Santa Gertrudis Creek improvements. System H. System H is a 36" pipe, which drains into Santa Gertrudis Channel. The series of drainage systems indicted above currently have sufficient capacity to serve the undeveloped site. In each case, the inlet capacity and/or the system downstream capacities (2 and 3 table columns) exceed the computed existing condition discharge (4 table column): The drainage pipes previously exited the freeway and discharged to swales ultimately tributary to Warm Springs Creek or Santa Gertrudis Creek. Subsequent improvements have created a closed system from Interstate 15 to discharge points in Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek. PA1999%N1620MR\9 7- HYDRO.DOC 5 -135 o x A ,. M�ib x � � Q N� O 1 C F ri �oo< It \ �� V RO- `. � �i l � i ll C � � If IPL Omo V S O vj u�N \ J y( m I IK U 4V Wln a ^ • L _► \� m Ilmn N ^� aOm °m OOW OII II NNI� VWU H OQQ 40Q OOQ aa N illy $ OQQ 0NN o o W aoa Nip r �l. 0 � M v p C z sr W E Q rya � W W 0 WOW J (n O N V pOa W cn P. 0 v1 av W''O Q N N (� - --------- -- --- - -- - -� �< z�b II N ic 2 1 < W ooa Q O .X > IR (D o ;oaaa U IU % wmaN C �\i' j -. ••� ,, 1 NoF �c Ho" o< z° MOn Doom 000a ..a< CA W \ Ct� �/ -1 •� � I i VG •� I— J O w mNnrn QVO \. IOI _OOa _oo¢ •� - � - -J W IA «� W 4 U I i Z °ooa '.'. W m _ m ,�`�.� -'�.. -% oaaa lw (n w UU ry mmo N z o II 0 m�in �. o It 4N w ix :..� COO <� i wa <ac bb 03 cd <� < vl Zo 1 II Z �% � II < z 'NO I ti N W (n I U �` V < "- w o II II ¢ U ¢IIK _ 00 Q Q Q (n mom ' >• oaaa Doom Q O W ow, QO II II •..�Q '�' 1 xl IM �` oaaa W ¢ oaUCaww� N QV _ 00 00 00 bl cnm o ' 3 a � � � � aGi Cc G m C,3 � � z ro / ro � ro ro ro ro ro UW y Q W < U - m xnw" W 'WN � o (n z °oa W wnQ ' 8 U GO ZOO< JL �Ilrc oOO< 8 ® o r r OW rfim m r i f we r m 60 r r MAN No 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE SURFACE WATER QUALITY Water quality in California is regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non -point sources. NPDES permits are required for any commercial and/or industrial construction sites or sites greater than 5 acres in size. As stated above, the existing site is currently undeveloped. It is anticipated that the existing runoff (minimal) from the site contains concentrations of fertilizers and pesticides associated with the past agricultural uses. These include particulate solids (total suspended solids), nutrients (total nitrogen compounds and phosphates) and bio- chemical oxygen demanding substances (BOD). 5.7.3 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Checklist Form, serves as a guideline of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. According to the Environmental Checklist, a project may be deemed to have a significant hydrology and drainage effect if it will: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, through alteration of the course of a stream or river, that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site; d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; or ' f) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would cause or expose people and property to substantial flooding or make worse existing drainage deficiency problems. The impacts related to the above stated criteria are discussed below. Additionally a significant impact would occur if implementation of the project would cause a substantial degradation of water quality. �.1 ' PA1998%N 162011EMR .7-HYDRO DO 5 -130 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE TABLE 24 HARVESTON HYDROLOGY SUMMARY ' Area Q -100 Q -10 Q -10 Sub- Area Q -100 Q -10 Sub -area (Ac) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) area (Ac) (cfs) (cfs) 1B 5.88 19.12 13.00 5.23 11F 0.93 2.81 1.87 1 2B 6.09 17.81 12.00 13.64 12F 1.10 4.10 2.79 3B 13.13 34.09 22.75 3.47 13F 0.52 1.46 0.97 4B 14.13 33.41 22.16 10.80 14F 1.27 4.57 3.11 5B 15.72 35.66 23.59 20.64 15F 4.72 14.57 9.91 6B 3.53 10.74 7.30 5.56 16F 2.31 1 7.95 5.40 7B 4.46 11.86 7.95 1.68 17F 5.82 17.75 11.96 8B 1.64 5.58 3.80 4.70 18F 0.56 1.67 1.12 9B 0.48 1.63 1.11 8.93 19F 2.73 9.19 6.25 10B 4.81 11.53 7.65 0.98 20F 10.32 31.78 21.44 11B 1.35 4.10 2.79 5.53 21F 1.42 5.19 3.53 12B 1.76 4.16 2.77 11.09 22F 1.40 5.11 3.48 13B 1.76 4.53 3.08 3.33 23F 1.06 3.89 2.65 14B 2.70 7.70 5.23 3.87 15B 3.01 10.85 7.38 2.94 1H 4.50 15.13 10.21 16B 1.26 1 3.58 2.43 2H 11.72 34.67 23.15 17B 16.25 35.72 2173 3H 2.60 5.99 3.91 18B 2.06 6.22 4.23 4H 9.08 18.40 11.84 19B 2.37 7.84 5.33 5H 0.93 2.90 1.97 20B 2.27 6.29 4.20 6H 8.27 20.31 13.55 21B 1.38 3.97 2.70 7H 3.22 9.96 6.77 22B 8.18 24.59 16.71 8H 1 0.42 1 1.18 0.80 23B 10.22 27.75 18.69 1 9H 2.43 1 5.80 3.86 24B 2.03 4.97 3.37 25B 5.22 16.12 10.96 lE 4.73 11.96 7.83 26B 8.90 24.81 16.72 2E 8.84 18.80 12.07 3E 8.96 19.47 12.71 1C 6.54 24.93 16.97 4E 8.03 15.96 10.31 2C 2.53 8.46 5.76 3C 4.76 14.12 9.51 11 7.41 21.83 14.84 1D 12.93 33.81 22.16 1L 10.85 30.31 20.59 2D 5.13 10.55 6.93 3D 12.98 21.48 13.35 IA 4.66 15.76 10.72 ' 4D 2.17 6.49 4.41 Q -10 2A 14.28 40.79 27.37 5D 2.48 6.61 4.49 1 (cfs) 6D 10.87 17.89 11.12 2.48 1G 2.34 9.57 6.51 7D 14.42 22.80 14.10 2.00 2G 2.10 6.36 4.24 8D 7.11 16.37 10.70 0.89 9D 0.88 2.86 1.95 L1 1187 34.85 23.23 10D 11.06 25.55 16.86 17.25 L2 14.2 40.46 27.68 t 11D 5.20 13.36 8.76 2.11 L3 2.67 7.61 5.21 12D 8.72 19.11 12.31 7.26 L4 7.17 19.34 12.63 13D 2.45 7.79 5.30 15.50 14D 11.66 33.11 22.25 0.84 15D 1.11 3.26 2.21 4.23 P A199NN162010R�.]- HYDRO.DOC 5 -140 m 7 M C rA P4 N Q 0 o o Q/} } •y + 1 0 C: �- I �� n o na viiav�avw W O �1 -^-- ~-�- - - - - -- .•....._._. :'t> O G� O Fq \ W a4 :3 co • \\ A 4 D� 0 O Wm� __ - -�_ �� y� A a a w w NNE 14 .t I x¢Ir s\ o d M 1�1 O .��'/�t�/0011� �� • � 1 ••1 II 1 I V II I I cy(n L(7 ' ' � 11 Z l I (n / Ix U 1 \ ` C N (n l LLI J F3 < UH U 1 1 �¢Z ^I• ^•. 1 •N r M Oa� a U 1 O V I I • • r W I 00 � ` W W i • \� U i i • O • C _ W / • N IL - .•� to � i •• -/•� w N�� yM33a� Sl.l _ ,� �" � • 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE System B: System B consists of a 66" pipe and will continue through the Caltrans right -of -way and join the existing series of drainage pipes consisting of 66" and 48" pipes, creating a closed conduit system. An off -site tributary area of 116.7 acres will contribute flows into the system. On -site detention facilities have been included to reduce on -site discharge into the system. System C: The proposed pipe size is 30 ", which must continue through the Caltrans right -of -way as a closed system, joining the existing 24" drainage pipe. The pipe size of the proposed system through the commercial business area may be refined when a final hydraulic analysis is prepared. System D: The proposed pipe size begins at 63" and ultimately joins the existing 84" CIPP at the existing terminus of Ynez Road. Pipe sizes range from 63" at the upstream end to 72" where it joins with the existing conduit at Ynez Road. 1 ' System E: No modifications to this existing 42" system are required to accept the proposed site discharges. System F: The design of System F has been completed as a part of the plans for Margarita Road. System F is proposed to serve the commercial recreation area and a portion of the proposed business park or ' residential area adjacent to Margarita Road, discharging upstream of the Margarita Road Bridge at Santa Gertrudis Creek. System F -1: This system has been constructed as a part of the Margarita Road improvements. It originates at the intersection of Margarita Road and Date Street, and continues southerly for about 3000 feet until it discharges to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Pipe sizes for this facility range from 48" to 72 ". System F -1 is proposed to serve future developments located to the north of Margarita Road, as well as the residential site proposed as a part of the Harveston development located at the northeast comer of ■ Date Street and Margarita Road. Relatively small tributary areas along Margarita Road, as shown on Exhibit 39, are also tributary to this facility. System G: System G (off -site) is a proposed pipe which will serve the easterly proposed residential portion of the site, discharging directly to Warm Springs Creek. Depending on outlet conditions, an energy dissipation device may also be required. System H: System H is proposed to serve a relatively small area of the commercial recreation site along the easterly property boundary. The proposed pipe size is a 39" conduit tributary directly to Santa Gertrudis Creek. A portion of this system was previously constructed with the Santa Gertrudis Creek improvements and no modifications to the existing improvements are required. System 1: System I is proposed to serve a small portion of the proposed single family home /school area. The proposed system will tie into the existing system "D ". STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY, 100 -YEAR STORM EVENT The configuration of the streets is designed to convey and contain the 100 -year storm event. The major (exterior) and the minor (interior) streets are proposed to have between a 0.5% or 2% slope. The typical interior and exterior street cross sections have been analyzed with a hydraulics program, Flow Master, to calculate a maximum flow that can be contained within the Right -of -Way, Table 26. Further street right - of -way information can be found in the Hydrology report on Exhibit F of Section C within Appendix F of the EB2. P: \1998 \8N 1610MR\5J- HYDRD.DD 5 -143 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE TABLE 26 MAXIMUM FLOW RATES PER STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY Street Slope ( %) Street Cap acity (cfs) ** ' Date Street* 0.5 162.91 Date Street* 1.0 230.39 Date Street* 2.0 325.81 Major Streets 0.5 304.17 Major Streets 1.0 . 430.17 Major Streets 1 2.0 608.35 , Interior Streets 0.5 90.57 Interior Streets 1.0 128.08 Interior Streets 2.0 181.14 * Date Street has a center median, maximum flow reflect total street width. ** Street capacity is based on street cross sections shown on exhibit F of Section C within , Appendix F of the EIR. Locations where flows will exceed the Right -of -Way limits will be routed into the project's proposed lake and the Arroyo Park (northeast corner of Ynez Road and Date Street), for detention. These detention areas will be designed to allow the 100 -year runoff flow to be conveyed within the street right -of -way. In all cases, except System G, the project storm drain discharge to existing improved downstream facilities, either directly to Warm Springs or Santa Gertrudis Creek, or through off -site mainline storm drains tributary to these facilities. Exhibit 39 indicates the outfall locations of the proposed drainage systems, noted as A through H. The proposed development will not adversely impact downstream areas with the proposed modifications. The drainage systems noted as E and H on Exhibit 39, discharge directly to Santa Gertrudis Creek through existing drainage pipes constructed with the Santa Gertrudis Channel improvements. Preliminary hydraulic calculations indicate that these drainage pipes have sufficient capacity to convey the proposed discharges (please refer to Table 27). Proposed system G discharges directly to Warm Springs Channel. No intermediate existing facilities are impacted by this System. Systems A, B, C and D discharge directly or indirectly to the series of drainage pipes at Interstate 15. Table 27 indicates the proposed discharge, the inlet system capacity with a headwall configuration upstream of Interstate 15, and a backwater system capacity based on the design discharge for the storm drain systems downstream of the freeway. �J P: \199MN16201\EW.i -HY RODOC 5 -144 1 7 .n. R� 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE ' TABLE 27 IMPACTS TO EXISTING FACILITIES AT INTERSTATE 15 Proposed Proposed Inlet Backwater Discharge Discharge Capacity Capacity System (Q100) (Q10) (cfs) (cfs) Comments A 56.55 38.09 39 30.7 Upgrade or replace existinR storm drain. B 672.65 442.90 470 540 Require on -site retention. ' C 3935 26.56 31 50+ Upgrade or replace tin storm drain. D 547.38 356.34 700 630 Sufficient system. 35.43 23.01 85 Sufficient system. E FH 114.34 76.06 60 Upgrade or replace existing storm drain. Source: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Note: Proposed Tributary Area "B" will be routed through the Arroyo Park or the lake, to reduce peak flows. Systems A and C will not convey the proposed discharge, assuming a headwall configuration at the upstream side of I -15. Additional analyses will be required identifying site specific designs on these systems. Designs shall include extending the system upstream to eliminate inlet losses, given the headwall configuration at the freeway and on -site retention. System B will exceed the capacity of the outlet structure. Drainage Area B accepts 116.7 acres of off -site flows into the system. An on -site detention basin will be used to detain the proposed 100 -year storm event runoff from exceeding the existing outlet structure. Systems D and E have sufficient capacities to convey the proposed site discharges as constructed. The closed system, or backwater capacities, are less than the inlet system capacities shown in the chart above, indicating the system receives strong backwater influence from downstream. Subarea 1D to 8D will be conveyed into the lake (L2), in order to satisfy the Right -of -Way limits for the 100 -year storm event. SURFACE WATER QUALITY I The proposed project is located within the Santa Margarita Regional Drainage Area Management Plan (SMR- DAMP). The SMR -DAMP requires the proposed project to be in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. The proposed project has the potential to result in a long -term impact on water quality due to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. Volatile solids in urban runoff can originate from accidental spills or deliberate dumping of lubricating oils or fuel oils; from emissions of engines during normal operations P. U998 162011 IRU.]- HYDRO.DOC 5 -145 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE such as vehicle exhaust particulates or drippings of crankcase oil; from dustfall or rainout of atmospheric particulates; from spilling of crude or refined petroleum products; from leached or eroded pavement; from natural seepage on land; or from natural biogenic sources. The proposed project has the potential to result in an impact on water quality due to the addition of volatile solids to the runoff. Stormwater flows from the future buildout of the Specific Plan project will be subject to the NPDES ' permit process. Through the NPDES Permit process, the City currently requires contributors to non -point runoff pollution to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for pollution. Under this program, the developer is responsible for identification and implementation of a program of BMPs which can include special scheduling of project activities, prohibitions of certain practices, ' establishment of certain maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of downstream waters. Typical elements of such a BMP program would include addressing the use of oil and grease traps, detention basins, vegetated filter strips, and other common techniques in ' order to preclude discharge of pollutants to local storm drains and channels. 5.7.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in a cumulative impact related to hydrology and drainage issues. The project's incremental contribution to this impact can be mitigated to a level less than significance. Water runoff will cumulatively increase due to the introduction of impervious surfaces. The proposed mitigation measures will reduce the project's incremental cumulative impact to a level less than significant. Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan project in conjunction with future related projects will incrementally contribute to a cumulative increase in the total amount of surface runoff erosion and water ' quality impacts. Construction related activities that require grading and vegetation removal will increase runoff, causing greater erosion and downstream siltation. Implementation of proposed mitigation will reduce the project's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to a level of less than significant. 5.7.6 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Alt construction activity will comply with NPDES requirements, as implemented and enforced by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. Also, all commercial development , will comply with NPDES requirements for stormwater runoff control, as implemented and enforced by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City will ensure that any required permanent facilities are in place. Compliance with these standard requirements will be mandated for the project. 5.7.7 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for any areas larger than 5 acres in size, the developer shall submit a "Notice of Intent" (NOI), along with the required fee to the State Water Resources Control Board to be covered under the State National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Construction permit and provide the City with a copy of the written reply containing the developer's identification number. P9199MN 16201TMI .9- HMRO.DO 5 -146 F 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE 2. Prior to the issuance of the grading permits, the developer shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan showing conformance to all NPDES requirements (enacted by the ' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Diego Region) for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical using best management practices, erosion control techniques and systems, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate. Storm Water Quality Alternatives 3. Catch Basin Filters Storm water runoff may contain quantities of oil and grease from the use of vehicles. Catch basin filters could be installed on the on -site catch basins to absorb these ' contaminants before they get into the storm drain system. Catch basin filter is a filter which utilizes a natural absorbent material called Amorphous Alumina silicate (Fossil Rock) to filter out oil and grease and also maintain sufficient flow rate. Exact design of the filters may vary according to the characteristics of the proposed catch basins. A maintenance program would ' need to be developed, if possible to make this practice practical. Such a program typically includes periodic inspections, debris removal, local area cleanup, and replacement of filter absorbent materials. An entity would need to be identified to carry out the maintenance program. ' 4. Catch Basin Cleaning Cleaning of catch basins would be performed regularly to remove debris and reduce pollutant concentrations before the first flush during storm seasons. Cleaning would N also minimize clogging of the catch basin filter and underground drainage system. This catch basin cleaning practice should be at minimum provided once a year before the wet season to eliminate debris accumulated during the summer. 5. Storm Drain System Signage The Standard "No Dumping" signs would be posted at all the catch basins on -site. 6. Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Education Information regarding the City's or County's mobile collection program, or a stationary collection site if the City or County has one in the area, or businesses in the area certified to take in such waste could be given to new home buyers by the homebuilder at the time of new home purchase. If a homeowners association (HOA) is formed for this development, similar information could be disseminated on a regular basis (newsletters, billings, etc.) through this organization. The HOA and homebuilder could obtain information on programs from and coordinate with the City's Community Services 1 Department. 5.7.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ' With implementation of proposed Mitigation Measure 1, the potential impacts to drainage will be reduced to a level less than significant. With implementation of proposed Mitigation Measure 1, the potential impacts associated with flooding will be reduced to a level less than significant. With implementation of proposed Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, the potential impacts to water quality will be reduced to a level less than significant. Implementation of proposed Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 will reduce the project's contribution to potential cumulative drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts to a level less than significant. P\1998VN 16'_OMHt�3 -HY RO.DOC 5 -147 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.8.1 INTRODUCTION The information contained in this section is summarized from the results of a technical report prepared by Tom Dodson & Associates (TDA) June 1999, which includes a jurisdictional wetlands delineation assessment. The biological report also includes a focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) report prepared in accordance with the 1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol. These documents in their entirety are contained in Appendix G of this EIR. 5.8.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY METHODS Background information was gathered prior to visiting this site in order to determine what species would be expected in this area. This background check included a search of the California Department of Fish , and Game (CDFG's) Natural Diversity Database (NDDB), a review of previously conducted biological surveys on the parcel and on adjacent parcels, and a review of the "due diligence" investigation for the parcel. The NDDB search was completed for the USGS Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic which includes the project site. Finally the results of the focused Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) survey and wetland/streambed delineation provided supplemental information for the species list. Field Reconnaissance Field surveys were conducted on the parcel on August 4 and 28, 1998; September 15, 1998; February 19, ' 1999; March 23, 24, and 29, 1999; April 5, 10, and 25, 1999; and May 6, 1999. The number and timing of site visits are based on accepted biological survey practices. The primary focus of this field investigation was to determine the presence of any sensitive biological resources on the project site; and to determine the extent of jurisdictional "waters of the United States" under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including wetlands, and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) °streambed" under Section 1600 of the CDFG Code. The following discussion summarizes the specific criteria for the focused QCB survey and the three types of jurisdictional areas: streambed, waters, and wetlands. A more detailed discussion of the criteria is included in Appendix G. Ouino Checkersvot Butterfly Survey Methodology The 1999 QCB focused survey protocol involves surveying the site during the flight season. The flight season is initiated by the Service and continues on a weekly basis until the Service determines the flight season is over. The surveys may be conducted only when weather conditions are considered "suitable" as outlined in the protocol. The 1999 flight season began on March 17, 1999 and ended on May 10, 1999. P MS%N161011EIR�.9- BIOR6S. O 5 -148 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.8 BIOLO RESOURCES California Department of Fish and Game Section 1603 The CDFG has jurisdiction over water flow areas, i.e. streams. In order to quantify the acreage of " streambeds," the channels on -site were walked and measurements of the discernable bed and banks were taken at approximately 100 -foot intervals. The acreage's were then calculated from these measurements. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Waters of the United States," Excluding Wetlands The limits of "waters of the United States," excluding wetland, are defined in 33 CFR 328.3(a) as those areas within the "ordinary high water mark" (OHWM). In order to quantify the acreages of "waters of the United States," the channels were walked and. measurements of the OHWM were taken at approximately 100 -foot intervals. U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers "Wetlands" The conclusions of the Jurisdictional Delineation conducted in 1998 are based upon The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Wetland Delineation Manual January 1987, Technical Report Y -87 -1 (Manual). This Manual outlines a comprehensive approach based upon the presence of the following three parameters: wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. GENERAL HABITATS N Two vegetation types were identified during the biological investigation. The approximate distribution of the vegetation communities and streambeds are mapped on Exhibit 40. The following is a discussion of ' these communities in order of relative area covered by the assemblages. Non - Native Grasslands This community occurs at the top of the slopes and in disturbed areas. The community is characterized storksbill (Erodium cicutarium), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), wild oats (Avena barbata), ripgut ' brome grass (Bromus diandris), and foxtail fescue (Vulpia myuros). Other species occurring in this community are short -pod mustard (Brassica geniculata), barley (Hordium vulgare), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and doveweed (Eremocarpus setigerus). Small patches of Plantago erecta, a ' known larval host species for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) was observed in the disturbed grasslands along the road margins above the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) remnants. These patches were discovered in early February, 1999. By mid- March, 1999 the Plantago was undetectable because it had ' been covered by the thicker and higher growing storksbill and brome grasses. Due to the disturbances on the site, these annual grasslands do not support a diverse fauna. The most ' common species observed on the site was beachy ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Other common species include western meadowlark (Sturnella magna), cottontail rabbits (Sylvalegus audobonii), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), western kingbirds (Tyrannus verticalis), and red - tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis). The primary biological. resource on this parcel is foraging habitat for raptor species. It should be noted that the raptors, which utilize the site for foraging, are not directly dependent upon the resource base of the site for population maintenance or their continued local existence. P.M 998%N1 RO DOC 5 -149 o n, Y v x � � a a 0 \\ Y , U \\ a r I i ro � T ' � i r i i P f ; f � / I / I / I / I ( ( / I a a k C U C w L O � U � c m m rn N d O C W c ) O O N ) Z C m N (D O Y C H C d cc m C O L C Q U U m m c C 0 C L N m y E 7 L CL v - 1 Z N C �G7 Q � z z 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOU Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) ' Of the approximate 500 -acre parcel, only 15 acres are vegetated by this degraded CSS community. This community is characterized by two dominant species: California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculation) and California sage (Artentisia californica). California buckwheat represents more than 90 percent of the vegetative cover in this community. California sage accounts for approximately an additional 10 percent. No other species, such as California sage and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) occur in these CSS remnants. One elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) occurs adjacent to the southern channel. The project biologist indicated that this individual is relatively old and there is no evidence of recruitment in its vicinity. A species list is included as Appendix A of the biological report, which is contained in Appendix G of the EIR. ' SENSITIVE SPECIES General Definitions - Regulatory Framework Sensitive species are classified in a variety of ways, both formally (e.g. State or Federal Threatened and Endangered Species) and informally California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) "Special" species. Species may be formally listed and protected as Threatened or Endangered by CDFG or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS, "the service ") (Federal: FT, FE; State: ST, SE), or as California Fully Protected (CFP). Informal listings by agencies include California Species of Special Concern (CSC) (a broad data -base category applied to species, roost sites, or nest sites); or as USFWS Candidate taxa. CDFG and local governmental agencies may also recognize special listings developed by focal groups, if properly reviewed and published (i.e. Audubon Society "Blue List," California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plants "). Quinn Checkerspot Butterfly (OCB) The QCB was listed by the Service as an endangered species on January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2313). This species is a small member of the Nymphalidae or "brush- footed" butterflies. QCB typically utilize grassland and open areas of CSS and chaparral. Historically the QCB's range extended from the Santa Monica Mountains in California, south to northern Baja California, Mexico. Today, known populations are restricted to San Diego and western Riverside counties and northwestern Baja California. The QCB has two distinctive life phases. The first phase is the "terrestrial phase" which is characterized by the egg, caterpillar, and pupa stages; and the second phase is the "flight phase" which is characterized by the butterfly stage. Each phase has distinctly different environmental or habitat needs. ' The terrestrial phase requires larval host plants which allows the caterpillar to feed and grow. The QCB are thought to be highly restricted in what species of plants are utilized as host plants. The only known primary larval host plant is Plantago erecta. Other species such as Plantago insularis and Castilleja exerta may be used as secondary larval feeding plants. These host plants are associated with the open or sparsely vegetated areas of CSS and chaparral. According to Mr. Greg Balmer, University of California at Riverside entomologist, the butterfly is generally found at sites where high densities of the host plants occur. The adult QCB flight season lasts approximately 8 to 12 weeks and can occur anytime between mid- January and June. ie During a habitat assessment conducted on February 19, 1999; Plantago erecta, a larval host species for the federally listed endangered QCB was observed along the dirt roads above the CSS remnants. Due to P I998%N16201E0 8- BIORESDOC 5 -151 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVES EIR 5.8 BIOLO RESOURCES the low rainfall this year, the Plantago erecta was approximately 2 to 3 cm tall and not more than 2 cm in ' diameter. Additionally, the proposed project occurs within the range of the Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi). The Stephens kangaroo rat (SKR) is not likely to occur on this parcel because , none were observed during the 1988 and 1989 studies conducted by SJM Biological Consultants, and these studies concluded that SKR are unlikely to occur on this parcel because of the frequent disturbances. The parcel does occur within the Habitat Conservation Plan Fee Area. The Service was consulted and a focused QCB survey of the potential habitat areas was conducted in accordance with the 1999 protocol. The flight season was initiated by the Service on March 17, 1999 and ended on May 10, 1999. By mid -March the Plantago was undetectable because it had been covered by the thicker and higher growing storksbill and brome grasses. The Service was re- consulted at this time to determine if a focused survey was warranted. They determined the focused survey should be completed because Plantago did occur on the parcel and the parcel was in the mapped "Adult Focused Survey Area." The result of this survey is there are no QCB observed on the parcel. (Refer to Appendix C of the biological report, which is contained in Appendix G of the EIR.) NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE SEARCH The following species were identified by the CDFG's NDDB and the Service as having the potential to occur onsite. The project biologists' rational for why the species do not occur on the project site is also provided below. Tetracoccus diocus: This plant species is listed as a Species of Concern formerly Candidate 2 species by the Service, and as a 1B (3 -2 -2) by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This species was not observed during this field review or the biological surveys for the City of Temecula General Plan. The nearest occurrence listed the NDDB is in the vicinity of Rainbow, California. The plant assemblages associated with this species are Chemise chaparral. Because the appropriate habitat is does not exist within the project site, it was not observed in the vicinity of the project site and was not observed during the field surveys. The probability of this species being present on the project site is zero. Coccyzus aniericanus occidentalis (yellow- billed cuckoo): This bird species is a state listed endangered ' species and is on the Audubon's "Blue List" The cuckoo is associated with riparian forest consisting of willow- cottonwood jungles with an understory of blackberry, nettles, and wild grape. There is no appropriate habitat for this species on this site. Therefore, the probability of this species occurring on site is zero. Vireo bellii pusillus (least bell's vireo): This bird species is both federal and state listed endangered and is , an Audubon "Species of Special Concern." This species occupies the similar habitat as the yellow - billed cuckoo during the summer where it nests and fledges young before returning to Mexico for the winter. There is no appropriate habitat for this species on this site. Therefore, the probability of this species occurring on site is zero. Pd1998WN 16201 EMS S-BIO, E ,D 5 -152 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Polioptila californica californica (California coastal gnatcatcher) (CAGN) is a federally listed threatened species that occurs in CSS in southern California. The CAGN are year -round residents of the ' CSS vegetative community in southern California. As late as the mid -1940s the CAGN was considered locally common and by the mid -1960s a noticeable decline had begun. The CAGN was listed as threatened in 1992. CAGN is a small thrush -like songbird approximately 4 to 5 inches in length with dark, blue -grey plumage above and gray -white plumage below. The breeding pairs become highly territorial by late February or early March and nest building begins in the second or third week of March. CAGN are very difficult to detect during the incubation and brooding stages of the nesting cycle. Once the young are older than 8 days the detection of breeding adults increases. Fledglings start to appear around the first of May. A pair may produce multiple clutches during the breeding season. The Service recommends 6 visits during the breeding to determine delectability and those visits should be no less than one week (7 days) apart. The site was visited on August 4 and 28, 1998; September 15, 1998; February 19, 1999; March 23, 24, and 29, 1999; April 5, 10, and 25, 1999; and May 6, 1999 as part of the general biological survey, the jurisdictional delineation, habitat assessment, and the QCB surveys. No CAGN were observed or heard during any of the ' site visits. Further, the remnant CSS that occurs on this parcel is not suitable for the CAGN. It does not offer the quality, continuity or quantity associated with the presence of CAGN in western Riverside County. Dipodomys stephensi (Stephens kangaroo rat) (SKR): This mammal species is federally listed endangered, and state listed threatened. This species is associated primarily with annual and perennial grasslands, however, does occur in CSS. The micro habitat described for this species includes California buckwheat, brome grasses, and storksbill. This rodent is known to burrow into firm soil. The proposed project occurs within the area designated "Fee Plan" in the Habitat ' Conservation Plan for this species. The SKR is not likely to occur on this parcel because none were observed during the 1988 and 1989 studies conducted by SIM Biological Consultants, and these studies concluded that SKR are unlikely to occur on this parcel because of the frequent disturbances. Clemmys marmorata pallida (southwestem pond turtle): This species is a federal Species of Concern formerly Category 2, and a CDFG Species of Special Concern. There are no ponds or flowing water on the site. The potential for this species to occur is zero. Phrvrzosonia coronatum hlainvellei (San Diego horned lizard): This species is a federal Species of Concern formerly Category L, and a CDFG Species of Special Concern. This species occurs on gentle slopes in CSS and chaparral in southern California. They are typically observed in open ' areas near cover and feed predominantly on ants. No horned lizards were observed during this survey or during the surveys for the General Plan. The only open areas appropriate for the lizards are the off - highway vehicle roads and trails. The habitat quality for this species is marginal, and therefore the potential for the species to occur on site is also modest. P:NIQN 9N1620PEIR�A BIO.RES.DOC 5 -153 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Cnemidophorus hypervthrus (orange - throated whiptail): This species is a federal Species of Concern formerly Category 2, and a CDFG Species of Special Concern. The preferred habitat for this species is washes with sandy open areas and patches of shrubs for cover. There are no scrub ' covering associated with the channels on the property, therefore, this species is not likely to occur on the project site because there is no such sandy wash habitat. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION , Two primary channels were investigated in this jurisdictional determination. The First channel traverses west to east along the northerly one -third of the property. This channel is characterized by unvegetated sandy bottomed channels with sharp transitions to the upland vegetation. This channel was delineated as a Army COE's "waters of the United States" and as CDFG "streambed." The second channel traverses east to west along the southerly half of the property. This channel is similar to the northerly channel in that it too is characterized by unvegetated sandy bottom at the eastern edge and transitions into a more deeply incised eroded channel. This channel bifurcates into a southerly secondary channel. The natural flows on this channel has been removed by the adjacent development. The flows that once entered the site have been placed in storm drains and diverted around the parcel. Therefore, the only source of water for these two channels is direct precipitation. Any flows generated on the parcel enter storm drains at the western edge of the parcel. Table 28 summarizes the length and jurisdictional acreages for each channel. The channel locations are shown on Exhibit 41, Stream Location and Vegetation Map. TABLE 28 SUMMARY OF JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Jurisdictional Acreage , Length of COE COE CDFG Area Channel Wetland Waters Streambed #1 North Channel 4,700 0.00 3.34 3.34 #2 South Channel 3,150 0.00 0.00 1.12 #2 Southern Arm 1,850 0.00 0.00 0.27 ' Total Acreages 0.00 3.34 4.73 Source: Toni Dodson and Associales n PA1998%N 1620 MIRE .8- 910.RES.DOC 5-154 vi. J ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • HARVESTON E IR 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.8.3 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE ' Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Checklist Form, serves as a guideline of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. According to the Environmental Checklist, a project may be deemed to have a significant biological resources effect if it will: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional ' plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service; ' b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Services; ' c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) ' through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established N native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Section 15065(a) of the CEQA Guidelines also states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when "the project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. In addition, because of the sensitive nature and decline of wetland habitats throughout California, the removal, filling, dredging, or alteration (directly or indirectly) of wetland or riparian areas will be considered a significant impact. 5.8.4 PROJECT IMPACTS ' POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (GENERAL IMPACTS) ' Implementation of the proposed project would not remove or alter any significant natural or native vegetation formations on the property because they do not currently exist on site. The site contains no natural wetland habitat or other sensitive natural assemblages. No natural plant communities or natural populations of native species would be affected, directly or indirectly, by the proposed development. Alteration of the project areas from their existing conditions, and removal of non - native grasslands would not contribute incrementally at any level of biological significance to general losses of natural habitat within the local area. The project would generate no direct significant adverse impacts to natural wildlife habitats on a local or regional scale. ' P: \199WNI6201EIRI9.8 -RIO.R ,DOC 5 -155 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ' HAR EIR 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES • At least one native raptorial bird species, the red - tailed hawk, uses the site as foraging habitat. Although ' the site does have important raptor foraging habitat due to the high abundance of prey species, there are few roosting sites available because of the total lack of large trees. Because foraging habitat for raptor species is not regionally unique, the loss of this resource would not be considered a significant impact. IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE SPECIES ' No sensitive (rare or endangered) plant, invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal species are known or expected to reside within, or occur in a resource - dependent relationship with, any portion ' of the overall site. Although the proposed project occurs within the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Area, this species is highly unlikely to occur onsite and Mitigation Measure 1 has been proposed to reduce potential impacts consistent with City /County requirements. Further, a focused survey for the ' QCB was conducted in accordance with the Service's 1999 protocol. The result of this focused survey is there were no QCB occurring on this parcel and therefore no impacts from development would occur. IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ' The proposed project involves the construction of culvert crossing over the northern channel and the , filling of approximately 6,000 feet of the two channels. Neither channel flows during a "typical storm event." The culvert crossings are associated with the proposed extension of two City of Temecula roads, Date Street and Ynez Road. The fill of the southerly channel is associated with the development of the proposed residential community, and the fill in the westerly one -third of the northern channel is associated with development of the proposed service commercial area. The proposed project will impact approximately 2.86 acres of "waters of the United States." No wetlands ' or riparian plant communities will be effected by the proposed project. Lennar Homes has obtained a 404 permit from the Army COE and a 1603 Agreement from the CDFG. Mitigation for these impacts includes avoidance and habitat creation. The project proponent avoided impacts to the channels to the extent feasible by revising the Land use Plan to avoid 1.84 acres of the northern channel. The proposed project was further mitigated by a 404 permit condition (Mitigation Measure 1) requiring the creation of approximately 8 acres of a riparian corridor on the along that northern channel. With the implementation of the 404 and 1603 permit conditions, no significant impacts to Jurisdictional Waters are anticipated. 5.8.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' The project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will ' incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level. P:IWMN162011EMd .&BIO. B DOC 5 -156 ' ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • HAR VE S T O N EIR 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.8.6 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES ' 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall pay applicable SKR mitigation fees in accordance with Chapter 8.24 (Habitat Construction) of the Temecula Municipal Code. 5.8.7 MITIGATION MEASURES Where significant impacts to site resources have been identified above, appropriate mitigation measures are suggested, intended to reduce the level of the impact to less than significant levels biologically. ' 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall provide proof to the Department of Public Works and Planning that the conditions of 404 and 1603 permits pertaining to the Arroyo Park restoration have been bonded for and shall be implemented consistent with the timing requirements of the permits. 5.8.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ' The proposed project will not result in impacts to sensitive (rare or endangered) plant or animal species as none has been identified as occurring onsite. Although no impact has been identified to SKR, implementation of the above standard condition will ensure that any potential impact to SKR regionally is mitigated to less than significant level. The ' proposed project will impact approximately 2.86 acres of "waters of the United States." No wetlands or riparian plant communities will be effected by the proposed project. Lennar Homes has obtained a 404 permit from the Army COE and a 1603 Agreement from the CDFG. Mitigation for these impacts ' includes avoidance and habitat creation. Mitigation Measure 1 requires implementation of conditions of 404 and 1603 regarding restoration of the Arroyo Park, which will reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. The project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level. i 1 1 P1199MN1620MIR� 8- BIO.RFS.DOC 5-157 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ' HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SER AND U TILITIES • 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' 5.9.1 INTRODUCTION , Information used in the preparation of this analysis was obtained through letters and phone conversations ' with public service and utility agencies in April 1999 through July, 1999. Utility service questionnaires are contained in Appendix A of this EIR. 5.9.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ' FIRE ' The following information is based on correspondence from the Riverside County Fire Department dated April 22, 1999. Three (3) stations will serve the site. The primary response unit is Station 73 located at ' 27415 Enterprise Circle West. The secondary response unit is Station 12 located at 28330 Mercedes Street. The third response unit is Station 83 located at 37500 Sky Canyon Drive. According to the Response Study for Temecula Area Fire Stations map, Station 73 is approximately 1 -2 miles from the ' proposed project site, Station 12 is approximately 2 -3 miles from the proposed project site, and Station 83 is approximately 2'/2 miles from the proposed project site. Station 73 is equipped with an engine and truck and has a response time of five minutes. Station 12 is equipped with an engine and has a response time of five minutes. Station 83 is equipped with an engine and has a response time of five minutes. These stations provide wild land and structural fire protection, , response to 911 medical aid calls, traffic accidents, and hazardous materials. Current plans for expansion of facilities do not exist at this time. POLICE ' The following information is based on correspondence from the Riverside County Sheriffs Department ' dated May 2, 1999. The City of Temecula contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff s Department. The Police Department uses both, City of Temecula Police Department and Riverside County Sheriff's Department, as its name. Riverside County Sheriff officers patrol in vehicles which read City of ' Temecula Police Department. They are currently responsible for response to 911 police calls, traffic collision, medical and other types of emergencies. Additional services provided include crime prevention, investigation, and enforcement of the law, providing police support to the area with patrol , responses, reporting, and investigative support to the adjacent areas. The department currently provides off road vehicle code enforcement services to the project site. The Southwest Sheriff Station is located at 30755 -A Auld Road, Temecula, CA, approximately 8 miles ' from the project site. The average response time from this location is 7 minutes. The average response time for the patrol units within City limits is 5 -6 minutes. ' - 1% P:11998VN1620MMI 9 -PSU= 5 -158 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' SCHOOLS ' The following information is based on correspondence from the Temecula Valley Unified School District, dated April 9, 1999. Elementary School The Nicolas Valley Elementary School, located approximately 2 miles from the proposed project, serves ' the site for elementary (grades K -5) school until the opening of the on -site elementary school in 2001. Enrollment as of September 2000 is 1132 students. Middle School James L. Day Middle School, located approximately 1 mile from the proposed project, is the middle school facility that would serve the site. The school opened on August 24, 1999. The current enrollment ' is 1,040 students. High School ' Chaparral High School, located approximately one -half mile from the proposed project, is the high school facility that would serve the site. The current (September 2000) enrollment is about 2,137. N PARKS AND RECREATION The following information is based on correspondence from the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD), dated April 22, 1999. Pursuant to an agreement with the City of Temecula, the TCSD administers the ongoing operations, maintenance and servicing of the City owned public park and ' recreation facilities, recreational and community service programs, amongst other responsibilities. Property owners pay for these services through a citywide park special tax. The City of Temecula currently owns and operates 22 public parks and several additional recreation facilities. Local recreational opportunities are also made available through joint use agreements between the City and the Temecula Valley Unified School District. ' Winchester Creek Park, 39950 Margarita Road, is a fully developed 4.5 -acre neighborhood park located just east of the proposed Harveston Specific Plan, across Margarita Road. Winchester Creek Park, is owned and operated by the City of Temecula. Several other neighborhood parks are located approximately 2 miles from the project site, on Nicolas Road. ' PA199MN1620ITM5.9 -PSU.D 5 -159 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SE AND UTILITIES Located approximately 3 miles from the project site, are Margarita Community Park, the Temecula t Elementary School pool facility, and Veteran's Park. Additional facilities located south of Rancho California Road include the Rancho California Sports Park and Community Recreation Center, Paloma ' Del Sol Park, Mary Phillips Senior Center, Temecula Community Center, Rotary Park and Sam Hicks Monument Park. LIBRARY ' The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Temecula, dated April 6, 1999 ' and the County of Riverside, dated April 1999. The City of Temecula participates in the Riverside County Library System (RCLS) and does not provide library services directly. The City does augment the Temecula Library budget by providing staff funding to keep the library open for 52 hours per week versus 32 hours per week, and by funding a part-time library volunteer coordinator. ' The Temecula Library, located approximately 2 miles from the project site at 41000 County Center Drive, would serve the project area. This facility is currently serving a population exceeding 90,000 , patrons and is the highest circulating branch in the RCLS. A Temecula Library Task Force is proceeding with design plans for a new, larger facility to be located on Pauba Road. The proposed facility will be approximately 33,000 sq. ft. To date, partial funding has been identified to construct this facility. ' PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The following information is based on correspondence from the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), dated June 24, 1999. RTA currently provides fixed route bus and dial -a -ride services to the project vicinity. RTA Fixed Routes , 23 and 24 operate along County Center Drive, Equity Drive, Ynez Road and Margarita Road. The project site is also served by the current Murrieta/Temecula DAR that provides curb service to seniors and ' persons with disabilities. RTA Route 23 & 24 use three (3) 17- passenger mini -buses operating 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday ' through Friday and from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. Murrieta/Temecula DAR uses three (3) 14- passenger vans and operates from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM on weekdays and from 10:00 AM -5:30 PM on Saturdays. There are no plans for expansion at this time. ' WATER The following information is based on correspondence from the Rancho California Water District dated , April 15, 1999. The Rancho California Water District provides water and reclaimed water services to the project area. The proposed project is located within the 1380 Pressure Zone, displayed on the map provided by the , Rancho California Water District, located in Appendix A of this document. The current maximum daily water demand for the 1380 Pressure Zone is 9,700 GPM. Projected ultimate maximum daily water ' demand for the 1380 Pressure Zone is 16,216 GPM. Current water supply sources are existing water production wells, MWD turn-outs, and the proposed EM -20 Turnout. P51 998%N 1620 MIR�.9 -PSU. O 5 -160 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Current plans for expansion of facilities include the Winchester Reservoir No. 2 (20 MG) — approximately year 2010 -2015, the Date Street Transmission Main (30 -inch diameter) from Margarita ' Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road — approximately year 2000, and EM -20 Turn -Out and Transmission Main (100 CFS water supply) — approximately year 2001 -2002. SEWER The following information is based on correspondence from the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) dated April 29, 1999. The.Eastern Municipal Water District serves the project site with municipal sanitary sewer services. The Santa Gertrudis Creek Interceptor is the facility that would serve the project site. Its present capacity is sufficient to accommodate the sanitary system flows originally master planned pursuant to Riverside County Assessment District 161. The interceptor sewer system is not planned to be expanded. The Santa Rose Water Reclamation Plant, who is owned and operated by the Rancho California Water District, treats wastewater flows in the project vicinity. STORM DRAINAGE/FLOOD CONTROL ' Please refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of this EIR for a discussion of storm drainage. NATURAL GAS The following information is based on correspondence from The Gas Company, dated April 21, 1999. Natural gas service is provided by The Gas Company. Existing facilities in the area include existing lines located along Ynez Road and Margarita Road. ELECTRICITY ' The following information is based on correspondence from the Southern California Edison Company, received April 21, 1999. Electrical service is provided in the area by Southern California Edison Company (SCE). All new lines installed in the City are required to be underground, and the City is currently working with SCE to achieve the undergrounding of existing lines. SOLID WASTE The following information is based upon telephone conversation in June, 1999 with the County of Riverside Waste Management Department. According to the County of Riverside Waste Management Department, the site is served by two (2) existing landfills. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road approximately 28 ' miles northeast of the project. The landfill is estimated to reach capacity in approximately 2004 -2005, however, it has the potential for expansion beyond the current capacity. The Lamb Canyon Landfill encompasses 788 acres and serves a regional area of 515 square miles. Lamb Canyon has a permitted annual capacity of 682,000 tons with the average daily capacity of the first quarter of 1993 being approximately 500 tons. The total capacity of this landfill is 8 million tons. The ie approximate remaining capacity for the landfill as of 1995 was 1.042 million tons. ' P:V 998%N 16201EMR .9- PSU.DO 5 -161 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 P U B LIC SER AN U T IL ITIES A second landfill, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill, can also service the project site. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill encompasses 1,081 acres and is located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County, east of the City of Moreno Valley. This facility currently has a disposal area of 141 acres and has an ' annual capacity of 432 thousand tons of solid waste. The facility is expected to close by the year 2010. The City of Temecula's current franchised waste hauler is CR &R, Inc., located in the City of Perris. CR &R currently provides all solid waste collection services for the City of Temecula. All solid waste ' generated within the City of Temecula is disposed of at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill. In addition, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (A.B. 939) required all cities and counties to ' develop a waste stream source reduction and recycling plan that will reduce waste streams to landfills 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. The project site currently generates minimal amounts of solid waste, mainly from prior ranching activities, animal waste, and domestic waste dumped on the undeveloped site. 5.9.3 THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist Form serves as a guideline of consequences ' that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. According to the Environmental Checklist, a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on Public Services and utilities if it will: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental , impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire Protection ' Police Protection Schools Parks Other Public Facilities b) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality , Control Board. C) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. d) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. e) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed. P:V998\8N1620MMI .9 PSU.DCC 5 -162 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES f) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in ' addition to the provider existing commitments. g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. h) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. ' Additionally, for the purposes of this EIR, expansion of existing services due to project demand constitutes a significant impact if the provider anticipates substantial difficulty in providing increased service. All public services and utilities have been analyzed to assess capacity impacts associated with the proposed project. 5.9.4 PROJECT IMPACTS FIRE ' According to the Temecula Fire Services and Riverside County Fire Department, future development of the project site will not create a need for expansion of facilities or addition of staff nor will it adversely impact the level of service presently provided. Because the proposed project is located within City limits, the Fire Services Fees are included in the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 1-4, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. POLICE Development within the project area will adversely impact the level of police services presently provided. Calls for service will increase, requiring additional staff and office time to manage the project ' area. According to the City of Temecula Police Department, development of the project site will create the need for an additional storefront field office facility to support walk -in type "Calls for Service ". This office could be located in a small strip mall or small shopping center complex. A storefront facility located in the new mall would not be feasible in serving the general public. The mall would require its ' own storefront to deal with any problems encountered at the general mall area. The proposed project would also create the need for additional staff. The following formula is used in the ' estimation for additional staff personnel: Ratio of I officer per 1000 population ' 2 bedroom unit — 2.5 occupants @ 300 units = 750 residents 3 bedroom units — 4 occupants @ 300 units = 1,200 residents 4 bedroom units — 5 occupants @ 1,300 units = 6,500 residents Total: 1,900 units averages to an estimated 8,450 residents The following staffing increase is projected: 5 swom patrol officers (1 of which would be assigned as (SRO) School Resource Officer) 3 non -swom patrol officers (Community Service Officers) Presently, there is no revenue budgeted for such an expansion. ' P91998%N16201\EIR\5.9 PSU.DOC 5 -163 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ' HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBL SERVICES AN U TILITIES • With the addition of the lake /lake park, a community park and mini parks, an arroyo park, a paseo park, mixed use village center, service commercial, and an elementary school unforeseen problems could be , projected for this project. With the "Promenade Mall which opened in October 1999, there is an anticipated increase in traffic flow on Margarita Road from the current residential traffic from Winchester Creek tract. Traffic on Margarita Road could pose a potential traffic problem in the near ' future with the opening of the Harveston project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 5, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. SCHOOLS ' The development of 1,921 new residential units would generate 787 additional elementary school ' students, 337 middle school students, and 244 high school students. A new elementary school site would be needed since the school currently serving the area is no longer able to expand on the existing site. Additionally, expansions to Day Middle School and Chaparral High School would be required to house new students. Additional staff would also be required to serve the students. ' The Temecula Valley Unified School District anticipates the need to build 18 additional school sites, and numerous expansions to existing sites over the next 15 -20 years. These construction schedules will be , paced with the need for additional facilities, driven largely by the pace of residential development in the surrounding community. The district currently does not have funds budgeted to add or expand facilities to accommodate the proposed project. The District anticipates funding the school facilities,for the proposed project from the fees collected through an agreement, with half of the cost being funded by the State, so long as those ' funds are available. There will be a need to expand school facilities at all levels to accommodate students from the proposed ' project. In particular, the District will need to be able to acquire and begin construction on the elementary school site within the project in time for the school facility to be completed when the first homes are occupied. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 6 -7, potential significant impacts would be ' mitigated to less than significant levels. PARKS AND RECREATION ' The proposed project would create additional demands on existing recreational facilities and service related programs. Implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan will create an additional demand for parks and recreation facilities. Additional staffing would be anticipated to fulfill these needs in ' concurrence with project development. The City currently requires the developer of residential development to provide 5.0 acres of parkland per ' 1,000 population, per the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. Utilizing the City's current population generation factor for parkland of 2.85 persons per single family unit and 2.43 persons per multi- family unit, the project is expected to generate a residential population of 5,349 persons. Based on , this population figure, the project would be required to provide 26.75 acres of public park facilities. The proposed community park, Winchester Creek park, mini parks, and lake park will mitigate the requirements. PA199NN16201EMR .9 PSII= 5 - 164 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' As mentioned above, implementation of the proposed project and the addition of an estimated 5.349 new residents to the area will create a potentially significant demand on the City -wide recreation program. ' However, the Specific Plan incorporates measures into the project design that will mitigate the potential impact and meet the additional demand. These measures include the dedication of 4.5 acres of land by the developer to the City of Temecula for the purpose of constructing a public park off Margarita Road. The Winchester Creek Park was built and made available to the community before construction of Phase ' IA of the proposed Harveston Specific Plan. Additionally, the project proposes a 16.1 -acre community park, which will be dedicated to the City of Temecula for use by the general public. This community park includes baseball, softball, and soccer fields, which will be used by residents of Harveston as well as City -wide residents. In addition to the above discussed parks, the.project includes other parks and ' recreation facilities such as the lake and lake park, village green, three mini parks, paseo park, and arroyo park that provide recreational opportunities for the community. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 8 -11, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. LIBRARY 1 The development of 1,921 new houses will generate additional patrons and will ultimately create a need for additional library staff, space, and additional resources. Additionally, the proposed project will create an increase in traffic through the library. The project will pay library fees, which are included in the ' City's DIF Fees to offset the project's effect on library facilities. The annual special tax paid by property owners helps offset library operations and maintenance. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 12, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The proposed project is anticipated to result in an increased demand for extended service to cover the project site. The project will create a need to expand coverage of the current Temecula/Murrieta routes. Additional buses are also needed to meet demands for increased service. Bus turnouts and shelters to serve future residents shall be provided as required and established by the City Engineer, Director of Planning, and the RTA. WATER ' Implementation of the proposed project would result in development of land uses that may impact existing water services and facilities. Although the Rancho California Water District foresees no problems serving the proposed project, construction of Winchester Reservoir No. 2 by RCWD will occur on an as- needed basis as water demands increase in the 1380 Pressure zone. ' RCWD has completed construction of the first 1380 Zone Winchester Reservoir and the 1380 Zone Winchester Pump Station. The RCWD Water Facilities Master Plan includes a proposed second reservoir for the ultimate master plan 1380 zone and a transmission pipeline in or near the future alignment of Date ' Street between Margarita Road and Winchester Road. Based on discussions with RCWD, the transmission pipeline will be constructed for the initial phase of the Harveston development. RCWD will evaluate the need to construct the second reservoir and/or additional regional pumping capacity prior to ' ultimate development of Harveston Specific Plan area. The proposed onsite domestic water distribution system is shown on Exhibit 41, Water Plan. The proposed water plan consists of 12 -inch and 16 -inch backbone pipelines for domestic and fire service to the proposed commercial, residential, and park land uses. The average and maximum water demand for the proposed Harveston development is estimated at 2.02 million gallons per day (MGD) or 3,503 gallons per minute (gpm), respectively, as outlined in Table 29, Estimated Domestic Water Demands. This includes irrigation demand for the parks and estimated lake P5199WN 1620 ITIR�.9- PSU.DD 5 -165 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ' HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES A ND U TILITIES r replenishment supply. RCWD operates a District -wide recycled water distribution system, and it may be , feasible to extend the recycled system to supply the lake and irrigation demands of Harveston. However, according to J. Harlan Glenn Engineers, typical recycled effluent contains fairly high levels of nutrients such as phosphates and nitrates which can cause explosive "blooms" of algae or other aquatic plant ' growth. If irrigation water is withdrawn from the lake, the total loading of nutrients to the take could be extremely detrimental to the aquatic community in the lake. If the only addition of water to the lake is make -up to cover evaporation and any residual seepage, the effect is less severe, but it does increase the ' maintenance cost and the water quality may not be aesthetically acceptable to the lake users. Full body contact sports (i.e., swimming) is not a planned activity for the lake, and is almost universally banned in most man -[Wade lakes. Incidental contact with the water, such as falling out of a boat or someone wading into the lake is not considered full body contact. Additionally, in drought conditions, water has never ' been denied to a lake with a live aquatic ecosystem such as the proposed lake within the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the lake would not be impacted during drought conditions and would keep its viability. Please refer to the memo prepared by J. Harlan Glenn Engineers, dated August 24, 2000, contained in ' Appendix A2 of this EIR, regarding the lake water supply. The RCWD water facilities master plan (September 1997) includes future regional water supply facilities to serve Harveston. These proposed regional facilities include transmission pipeline and reservoir ' capacity. SEWER , Implementation of the proposed project may result in additional demand on the existing sewer system from increased sewage flows, but will not adversely impact the level of service presently provided. Harveston Specific Plan area is located within the sewer service boundaries of Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). However, the wastewater flows are proposed to be treated at the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plant, which is owned and operated by the Rancho California Water District. The plant is ' located at Elm Street and Washington Avenue. The estimated ultimate average and peak wastewater flow from Harveston is 0.723 MGD and 1,507 gpm, respectively, as outlined in Table 30, Estimated Wastewater Flow. Tables 31 and 32 describe estimated wastewater flows by reach and by reach and regional sewer respectively. ' According to the Eastern Municipal Water District, the existing facilities can accommodate this increased demand. Expansion of facilities and additional staff will be required over time. The ' downstream Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility will be undergoing expansion in phases to accommodate increases in sewer flow from the area. The subject, however, will not be conditioned for such expansion and additional staff. Revenue is available through existing Financial Participation Charge Program. As development connects for service, a connection fee based on project usage of the system ' will be collected by EMWD. The proposed onsite collection system is shown on Exhibit 42, Proposed Sewer Plan. Sewer from the , proposed project area will be directed to the EMWD sewer system along Santa Gertrudis Creek at two locations: one from the existing 15 -inch sewer in Margarita Road, and one from the existing 12 -inch sewer in Ynez Road. This scenario would require increased capacity in the Ynez Road sewer system to serve the project. Excess capacity would have to be determined in the Margarita and Santa Gertrudis , sewers, which are regional facilities serving other developments. A parallel 15' sewer line is planned in Ynez Road as part of the Harveston development. STORM DRAINAGE/FLOOD CONTROL ' Please refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of this EIR for a discussion of impacts related to storm drainage. P: \1998%N16101\EIR�.9- PSU.DOC 5 -166 ' r w ' R F • '- t oo a ' Q ' C� C s' L� 0 00 N V1 V1 0 00 N N W^ M O C.\ C\ V'f 7 kn E 00 rn 00 � 00 N N * m t� 00 00 M M N — N^ V r- N^ M N r- W o� ❑ x� �r �a N M w ^ M M 7 V. ^ D\ O G - vl \c 7 N n < Cal N G\ 00 V V M � 7 � � V M � _ � — O� ' O N rA V7 p O Z ❑ s p N 0 0 S O O 0 O C O O N 0 --� 7 C) tq 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 o0 00 00 O o0 r C\ V N N O 0 W M 00 in V M (� F .r m ' d o0 N "aF 0�7 D ❑�:7a D � D Qd .. > > �Q o c� �w uQeeeeeQeeeaA III ��Q o E eaca�gLlC�p � �,vn.an.acvn.n.n.v0�;, c r o00o0 000 ❑ F ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢¢¢ a¢ o ❑ 7 0 0 C) o C 0� o C 0 0 v v v v v 'IT c w ❑ _ _ N N � E 'u r E cn W F« a 0 0 0 : ]] Q U U U U U U U a o r F. zL�OC�C�QgC�❑pL1Q�¢¢QQ¢Q¢p M M O 00 m O ❑ O N � �-'� N N N eq m M _ c c r 30 c Y W = C E N L.L. Y BU U a Z t G a o d o ' o abi o a�x a�av >Ov E =° u o 0 a n/ � a a A c�c S M S m 7 0�o O O O S S N It 7 00 .V N C� � D W v� O O O C C 7- 0, VJ M_ C� C, O O C O O M N U N 7 "" C M N '� O N O O S O O O O M FI W z� w� Z cn m p . Q V] U � M Fry U C w W 7 �n M �' oo v1 M M S O p O O s O O O O O M C G ' a O ° ' 000000000o rT. q S v, �/1 h 0 0 v1 v1 v� v1 O u �. �y 7 O 0 N V1 r 5l f— P N O _ -. O O I to M M 7 0 In rq .... 7 7 a M •r V v N 7 N r0 ' G N 3 Qc N o C Cl o a ' N N N N N N N N N N N N N N •�' M 00 T m� p�o0M I �� @C Gr7 �•- °w �F 0 o g 0 . 0 C° C o < g O 0 o 0 o C 0 0 0 0 0 'JD c � as a E Q Q]�D ] ] a Q U U U U U ON �- zQQQQQQQQQQQ�GG¢QQ¢QD a: 'a 'en 12 c'V�1 M O OM N — _ d ,�V E ° 0 C ca 'O T t a� ' O = 3 w cc u ° b a � W o r o �° °° o m t u Z a x a E a n a a Q 7 O V F o u a F a a c a z F W W U Q � ~ _ x W oN — M o0 ^ 0o nnnc o Man t Vi N M .. N n N N h V1 7- W O O O p O O O O O O O O O O .- in C O O O O O O O O O O cc 00 a � o m O V N Vl n C Y L v1 0 G1 a M M 7 V M O\ 7 C 0o N n O n 0 C J O r V N �� 00V -q O V O 'D O O VV O [. �y ; -• -• T N CJ M N 7 00 rl �s C N E � F d � � F W a 4' L W O N 00 00 w O 00 r 3 e z ' G F Q < c`i F � W F O O O O p O 0 0 O O O 0 0 O N n 0 O O O h ' n N v 1 O O r O M 7 0 t h n O tn ' W M N N N N �D-- U O L U ' - G CQ WU O QC7U O Q0.1 O Q W UA O Qq O. •o ' •-. F N N N F. M M F 7 7 7 V a N M a N F O a w u o x � d m 1 v� w F vi Q ~ 3 F3" r 3 mva�rn Nv�v�n rMa �� -on oo Vl .. M N1 M O Ol O� Oi C ' evC o 3_ fi rya F3 ' o ° N a � x C V M M M M M M M f7 M M M mm -M en M M M O a� u 3 E ' u W � o ��U,0000 ooco 000 00000 000': o u C 9 F 0 0 0 0 O o o 0 0 O O O O O O O R O O O O O y0 N 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O cc== L tr7y O w W �a W �QmUF N�NF°, �mF v u u z w � a c 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UT ILITIE S ' NATURAL GAS ' SCG indicates that gas service could be provided in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 13, potential significant impacts ' would be mitigated to less than significant levels. It should be noted that Assembly Bill 1890, commonly referred to as the "Public Utilities Act ", has allowed for the deregulation of public utilities in California. Based on this Act, a number of other service ' providers are able to enter the marketplace. Consequently, there may be additional utility service providers in the near future providing the same services that The Gas Company currently provides to southern California and the proposed project site. ' ELECTRICITY ' SCE does not anticipate any significant impacts in providing the project site with electrical power. SCE stands ready to install distribution facilities for the project site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 14, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. t It should be noted that Assembly Bill 1890, commonly referred to as the "Public Utilities Act ", has allowed for the deregulation of public utilities in California. Based on this Act, a number of other service providers are able to enter the marketplace. Consequently, there may be additional utility service providers in the near future providing the same services that The Edison Company currently provides to southern California and the proposed project site. ' SOLID WASTE Project implementation will increase the amount of solid waste generated in the region, which in turn ' will increase the demand upon services of waste haulers in the project area. Utilizing the County Waste Department's criteria of 1.75 tons per person per year for the City of Temecula together with the estimated population the project is anticipated to generate, the projected residential - related solid waste is anticipated to be approximately 8,575 tons (17,150,000 lbs.) per year. Commercial / business park waste generation is typically based upon estimated persons employed, or ' type of use. However, in order to portray a "worst-case" assessment (utilizing factors provided by the National Solid Waste Management Association), the commercial / business park land use proposed is estimated to generate 1 pound of solid waste per day per 100 square feet of space resulting in approximately 4,093 tons (8,186,000 lbs.) of solid waste per year. Total annual project - related solid t waste is estimated to be 12,668 tons (25,336,000 lbs.) per year. This annual total represents less than 2 percent of the permitted annual capacity of 682,000 tons for the Lamb Canyon Landfill. In addition, the construction phase of the development will also produce on -site solid waste. Typical construction wastes are calculated at approximately 16 pounds of waste per square foot of building space and generally consists of lumber, roofing materials, concrete, debris, etc. Assuming 2,000 square feet per ' dwelling unit (3,842,000 square feet) and 2.395,147 square feet (these square footage numbers represent a 35% "worst- case" lot coverage) for the proposed commercial / business park and school land uses, approximately 50,329 tons (99,794,352 lbs.) of solid waste could be generated during the construction phase of ultimate project build -out. ' PAI"WN 1620ITMIX .9 -PSU. DOC 5-171 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Please note the impacts of solid waste generated by the elementary school are addressed in the December , 7, 1999 approved Initial Study / mitigated negative declaration. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires cities to adopt a Source Reduction ' and Recycling Element (SRRE), which requires the City to divert 25 percent of its solid waste from its landfills by 1995 and to divert 50 percent by the year 2000. The City adopted its SRRE in December ' 1993, pursuant to State law, and is well into implementation of its SRRE, which will help the City achieve its 50 percent diversion goal by 2000. Recycling reduces the quantity of waste disposal, but lower future annual percentage increases in daily per capita waste generation is necessary for the City in ' meeting their State - mandated goals of Assembly Bill 939. The County Waste Management District recommends that new development projects include methods to reduce the quantity of waste being sent to local landfills, including proper site design for the storage of ' recyclables separated for pick -up. Implementation of a waste disposal strategy for the proposed project can assist the City in achieving and maintaining their mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act by developing feasible waste programs that encourage source reduction, recycling and composting. There appears to be adequate landfill space for the present and immediate future, and the City , participates in solid waste management activities through its SRRE. Based on this information, no significant solid waste utility impacts are expected with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 15 through 19. The project will be consistent with the goals of the General Plan related to utility systems after implementation of the proposed Mitigation Measures 15 through 19. 1 PM99818N162011EMR .9 PSUDDC 5-172 ' co N b W z 0 0 bot N ' O •- � W QQ c� cM U N ya viiaysa� - -- 4-4 tt �or m w / W O N �� \ • LL J �/ / o° ••\ ZE p�« 1 I III f ♦\ O O� i[1 I, •� 2 m p 1, Q N I • , o h r Y N Y D 1 Wa I -- I l 1 M •••�� jeW �i c' 6 G `; O rn 11 '• - �' 1 O� '• ° I T 1 ♦, � , w^ ¢ W F y O M B IN i V m co IQ ' I o 1� Ow�m lI,11 3 K �_ mn U H • _ fn I i �' Off¢~ Q I : N`,\ N �¢� I:I OQ O W O Z m 1 ! ``• O W m // O W N } O r �]m M • Mm fr U v p I •`\ tP6 :� O 1 •� N rr/ � ' 1 a / N r , HUH gUF�- N� ZYQ �=aj •: /00 oam �wN m . Ma,p r r r . UU i y I 1 a °N I U 11 ', � I i I � U •' � .. Q r !q O N I ' I I � v N N 8 r- ® g� mom m m i �� w x � N � � o 0 0 U h as viiavaavw cn n I ' _:• N v ao w !� Om - -- �1 �00`, o c > I'U ig :�� W N z ° % p ¢ \ � IU tV U OJ \CG L l LO it r M •� c$c// / 0��. o rn '• x N Z____ Y \•• \• `� � �� g r: d Q O ••, w s o i � �UF U I 1•,I N O =Q ua I' WUZ ¢— p WMm Y I � \ I N W HUH O OQZ Q Z Of Dom O� : �Qo w - -- - - 6 J i I I� I w �k/,'•,,• ---- _ _U '; •� / O - > � N u 8 S mom m m m m m � 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 5.9.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FIRE The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on fire services. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 1-4, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. POLICE The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future ' developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on police services. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 5, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. SCHOOLS - The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on schools. With implementation of ' Mitigation Measures 6 -7, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. PARKS AND RECREATION The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on parks and recreation. With ' implementation of Mitigation Measures 8 -11, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. ' LIBRARY The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future ' developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on library services. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 12, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. ' PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The proposed project will not result in impacts to public transportation levels of service; therefore, the project in and of itself will not contribute to the cumulative impact on public transportation services in the area. WATER The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on water supplies and facilities - P: \1998%N16201�IR6.9- PSU.DOC 5-175 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 P UBLIC SERVICES AND UTILI SEWER 1 The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on sewage facilities. STORM DRAINAGE/FLOOD CONTROL Refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology for a discussion of cumulative impacts related to storm drainage. NATURAL GAS - 1 The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future , developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on natural gas services. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 13, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. ELECTRICITY The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 1 developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on electricity. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 14, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. SOLID WASTE M The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 1 developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on solid waste and landfill capacity. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 15 through 19, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. 1 5.9.6 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES 1 All utility and public services improvements proposed as part of the Harveston Specific Plan/EIR will meet applicable City of Temecula, County of Riverside, and uniform codes (i.e., plumbing, fire, building) including potable water and sewer pipelines, electrical cables and wiring, and natural gas lines. The proposed improvements will go through City's development review process and construction inspection program to ensure proper compliance with these standards and codes. 1 5.9.7 MITIGATION MEASURES FIRE 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, developer of individual projects shall pay the , Development Impact Fee - Fire Protection Facilities Component per dwelling unit and per square foot of commercial spaces as adopted by the City of Temecula. Pi1998%N 16201EIR6.9- PSO.DOC 5-176 1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTIL ITIES 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer will demonstrate that all structures on -site shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as described in Section 3202 of the California Building Code. All roof materials shall be a class 'B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will demonstrate that all water mains and fire hydrants provide required for flows and shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Temecula Municipal Code Ordinance No. 99 -14 and No. 99 -23, subject to approval by Temecula Fire Services during design review. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will demonstrate compliance with fire flow, street width, and design requirements as established by the City and County departments, as appropriate. ' POLICE 5. Prior to the approval of development plans, the developer shall incorporate the following crime prevention measures within the detailed design plans for each tract map submitted to the City for review. The City of Temecula, Crime Prevention Officer shall review detailed plans for proposed residential and commercial uses in order to insure incorporation of these measures: • On -site street, walkways and bikeways shall be illuminated in order to enhance night time visibility; ' • Doors and windows shall be visible form the street and between buildings in order to discourage burglaries and potential suspect hiding places; • Fencing heights and materials utilized are intended to discourage climbing; • The numbering identification system utilized on -site shall be visible and readily apparent in order to aid emergency response agencies in quickly finding specific locations; and • Walls along backbone streets will utilize graffiti resistant materials in their construction. ' In addition, shrubs, vines and espaliers shall be planted along the outside of these walls in order to provide coverage thereby further discouraging graffiti and climbing. ' SCHOOLS 6. The project developer shall enter into a Mitigation Agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified ' School District to insure the provision of adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy. This agreement must be finalized prior to final tract map recordation. The developer will be required to provide a middle school site and an elementary school site or payment of fees, or a ' combination of these elements. 7. The conveyance of any school sites and/or facilities shall occur in accordance with District policies in effect at the time of development. Any school site(s) offered to the Temecula Valley ' Pi1998%Ni6201EIR�.9- PSU.DO 5 -177 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERV AND U TILITIES Unified School District shall meet the District's requirements in terms of the exact location and ' configuration prior to the recordation of the tentative tract maps for each development phase. PARKS AND RECREATION , 8. Prior to tentative map approval for individual planning areas, all recreational facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) and the Planning Department, to ensure that said facilities are in accordance with the City of Temecula standards. , 9. Prior to the approval of the final map for individual planning areas, the developer will dedicate land or contribute to the City's in lieu park fees in accordance with the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. 10. Prior to final map approval for individual planning areas, the developer will certify that ownership and maintenance of all open space /conservation areas will be the responsibility of a , private entity and/or the Temecula Community Services Department, as determined by the Temecula Community Services Department. 11. Prior to the issuance of the specified number of building permits the 16 -acre Community Park shall be completed per TCSD requirements and conveyed by grant deed to the City of Temecula. LIBRARY 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, developer of individual projects shall pay the ' Development Impact Fee - Libraries Component. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Impacts are addressed in Section 5.3 of this EIR. Please. refer to Mitigation Measures 6 through 8 in Transportation / Circulation Section of this Mitigation Monitoring Program. ' WATER Because implementation of the project as proposed, including the Specific Plan master utility plans, ' standard conditions, and uniform codes, is not expected to produce any significant impacts on water, no mitigation measures are necessary. t i P5199WN 162011E1R�.9- PSU.DO 57 1 ' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • HARVESTON EIR 5.9 P SER AND UTILITIES SEWER Because implementation of the project as proposed, including the Specific Plan master utility plans, standard conditions, and uniform codes, is not expected to produce any significant impacts on sewer, no mitigation measures are necessary. STORM DRAINAGENLOOD CONTROL ' Please refer to Hydrology and Drainage Section of this Mitigation Monitoring Program for a discussion of impacts related to storm drainage. ' NATURAL GAS 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, The Gas Company or designated natural gas provider shall ' be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. ELECTRICITY ' 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, Southern California Edison (SCE) shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. SOLID WASTE 15. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the developers will inform all refuse generators within the project site, in writing, about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e., buy -back centers, curbside recycling, etc.). The use of such facilities will be encouraged by the developer, through information (e.g., materials accepted, location, etc.) provided in sales ' literature. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will provide adequate areas for collecting ' and loading recyclable materials (recycling areas) in the commercial and multi - family residential areas. This will help the City comply with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (AB 1327). The developer will also demonstrate compliance with established standards for design, siting, and operation of recycling areas and programs. 17. All residential units within the Harveston Specific Plan shall participate in the City's three (3) ' bin recycling system for the collection of solid waste, recyclable, and green waste materials. 18. All multi - family, commercial, and industrial wastes shall be processed at the Materials Recovery ' Facility in the City of Perris or similar recovery facility. 19. Proof shall be provided to TCSD that, construction debris, including but not limited to lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper, metal, etc. shall be recycled. P: U998%N1620VEIR�.9 -PSU. DOC 5-179 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITI 5.9.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The proposed project will create increased demand for public services and utilities on a local and regional basis. After mitigation, potential project impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will create an increased demand on fire, police, schools, parks and recreation, library, public transportation, water, sewer, storm drainage /flood control, natural gas, electricity, and solid waste services and facilities. Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce each incremental cumulative impact on the associated public services and/or utilities to a level less than significant. ' P:\19 WN16201I MR 9- PSU.DO 5-180 ' 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 INTRODUCTION 1 The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 (d) requires that an EIR, "Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could reasonably attain the basic objectives of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" Section 15126 (d)(1) states, "The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." As stated in Section 15126 (d)(5), "The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the 'Yule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision making and informed public participation." A range of alternatives has been considered for the proposed Harveston project. These alternatives are discussed in four categories: 1) Land Use Alternative; 2) City -Wide Buildout Circulation Alternatives; 3) ' Community Park Design Alternatives; and 4) CEQA Alternatives. It should be noted that the Land Use Alternative and CEQA Alternatives are alternatives to the proposed Harveston Specific Plan project. The City -wide Buildout Circulation Alternatives present supplemental information and variations regarding ' City -wide buildout circulation, and are not alternatives to the proposed project. Additionally, the Community Park Design Alternatives present variations on the Community Park parcel configuration. The Land Use Alternative category includes only one alternative, which proposes a 30 -acre Business Park designation at the southern portion of the service commercial area (Planning Area 12), The City -Wide Buildout Circulation Alternatives category includes three circulation alternatives. Alternative 1 is the proposed draft circulation element plan with a Cherry Street Interchange. This alternative proposes to maintain the Cherry Street connection and any associated improvements within the Temecula City limits. ' Alternative 2 is the Date Street over - crossing, which proposes to eliminate the Cherry and / or Date Street Interchange and include an over- crossing instead of the interchange. Alternative 3 is the Cherry Street over - crossing, which proposes to eliminate the Cherry and / or Date Street Interchange and include an ' overcrossing instead of the interchange. The Community Park Design Alternatives category include five design alternatives. Alternative 1 includes an Equity Drive realignment and use of the 1.25 acre out parcel. Alternative 2 includes an Equity Drive realignment and use of the 1.25 acre out parcel. Alternative 3 includes a variation of the Equity Drive realignment and use of the 1.25 acre out parcel. Alternative 4 includes a partial variation of the Equity Drive realignment and use of the out parcel. Alternative 5 includes an Equity Drive realignment, but no use of the 1.25 acre out parcel. The CEQA Alternatives category includes three alternatives, however, since the alternatives must be capable of eliminating any significant adverse project effects, it was determined that alternatives 2 and 3 within this category would not be capable to accomplishing this goal. Therefore, the only CEQA alternative discussed in detail in this section is the "No Project/No Development" alternative, which assumes the site would remain at its current undeveloped state. Table 33, located at the end of this Section, provides a summary comparison of the alternatives evaluated in the following pages. 6 -1 ' \ \IR01 \VOLI\PROJFILE \1 998 \8nl6201\ Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dm 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE 1 HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT 6.2 LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 6.2.1 Alternative 1 - Business Park Land Use Only one land use alternative is considered and described below. The environmental assessment for this alternative is also provided below. 6.2.1 Business Park Land Use Alternative Description of Alternative This alternative proposes 30 -acre of Business Park within southern portion of Planning Area 12, which under the proposed project is designated as Service Commercial. Please note that the proposed alternative described herein would be designated as "Business Park" in the City of Temecula General Plan and as 'Light Industrial" under the City of Temecula Development Code. The advantage of this alternative is to create a better transition between the Service Commercial within the Specific Plan area (remaining 82.4 acres of the proposed Service Commercial) and the existing adjacent Business Park/Light Industrial uses to the south. Additionally, while creating a more compatible use with the existing surrounding uses to the south, addition of this use creates more land use diversity within the overall Specific Plan area. It introduces new uses within the Business Park designation which otherwise would not be permitted within the Harveston Specific Plan. The following provides an environmental assessment of this alternative (refer to Exhibit 43, Business Park Land Use Alternative). If the alternative Cherry Street alignment is selected, the exact business park area would be somewhat modified but would remain roughly the same size. Environmental Assessment Environmental impacts for this alternative would remain the same as the original proposed project, except for transportation/circulation impacts, which would differ from the proposed project. The reduction of traffic under this alternative resulting in reduced transportation/circulation impacts would also be carried through to air quality and noise impacts. Land Use Compatibility This alternative would create a better transition between the proposed Service Commercial and the existing uses to the south. It also proposes more land use diversity within the Specific Plan area. Aesthetics/Light & Glare This alternative would result in similar aesthetics /light and glare impacts associated with the original proposed land use plan. Transportation/Circulation This alternative would result in a reduction in total number of trips. The total average daily traffic (ADT) figure in this alternative will be 22, 559 compared to 24,089 ADT with the original land use plan. This translates into a 6% reduction in ADT from the original plan. Additionally, the total Monday through Friday peak hour traffic for the Business Park alternative would be slightly reduced compared to the original land use plan with Service Commercial uses only. The Business Park alternative would reduce the Saturday peak hour traffic between 20% and 25 %. Therefore, although short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of trucks and construction vehicle traffic would be similar to the original land use plan, long -term impacts with transportation/circulation would be less than the proposed project under this alternative. 6 -2 \ \IROI \VOLITROJFILE \1 998 \8nl6201 \Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dm (� 'd �. i ✓ Y Y V a W \ Z \ \ \ Q 'Oki n, W C a .p x a E o rl I x o N C. F� O �UU W w � 3u � j 2 W � � W ♦\ U H W < Z_ y V) W J N O M O I • • I • I • .� Y > Q F U a � ¢ i O C Z W m ♦ p �1°m 1 b� O 1 /bb �b VW I • N (n ♦ F n I O Q MZ 1 n O M U N N¢ j U N 1 W W Q Z • c] aD O `L I ♦ � I u'i O mom m m = O ) N 6 6 J W Y • / • � N r � o 0 i OQ I ♦ W �V� • `Y I • 1 O I �j ` ♦' z f -_ ' 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT Air Quality t The percentage reduction in ADT (6 %) associated with transportation / circulation for this alternative would in turn translate into less air quality impacts. Although short -term increase in air emissions due to construction would be similar to the original proposed land use plan, long -term impacts associated with 1 air quality would be less than the proposed project. Noise ' The percentage reduction in ADT (6 %) associated with transportation/circulation for this alternative would in turn translate into less long -term noise impacts. Although short-term increase in noise due to construction would be similar to the original proposed land use plan, long -term impacts associated with ' traffic noise would be less than the proposed project. Geology and Soils 1 This alternative would result in similar impacts associated with compressible and expansive soils, landslides, and seismic ground subsidence. ' Hydrology and Drainage This alternative would result in similar impacts related to increased surface water runoff. This alternative would also result in similar impacts related to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. 1 Biological Resources This alternative would result in similar biological resources impacts associated with the original land use plan. Public Services and Utilities ' This alternative would result in similar impacts to public services and utilities as identified with the implementation of the original land use plan. ' Status of Alternative This alternative is feasible. It meets the City and developer's objectives, while not requiring any ' additional land that would not be under the City or developer's ownership. This alternative reduces overall traffic by reducing total ADT by (6 %). This reduction would also create less long -term air quality and noise impacts compared to the original proposed land use plan. It introduces better compatibility with the existing uses to the south and creates more diversity within the Specific Plan area. This ' alternative should remain under consideration. 1 6 -4 ' \\IR01 \VOLI\PROIFILE\ 1998 \8n16201\ Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dm 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE ' HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT 6.3 CITY -WIDE BUILD -OUT CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES 6.3.1 Alternative 1 - Draft Circulation Element Plan with Cherry Street Interchange 1 6.3.2 Alternative 2 - Date Street Over - Crossing Alternative 6.3.3 Alternative 2 - Cherry Street Over - Crossing Alternative Description of Alternatives , As indicated in the April 1999, Notice of Preparation for this project and within Section 5.3 of this EIR, the City of Temecula's Circulation Element Update is currently in progress. ' The proposed Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4 in Section 3.0) identifies proposed land uses, as well as a proposed Circulation Plan that would accommodate the City's City -wide transportation needs. The Date , Street Connection (as shown on Exhibit 4) is identified on the City's Existing Circulation'Element. As identified within Section 5.3 of this EIR, under the City's Ultimate Build -Out Traffic Scenario, significant cumulative build -out impacts (i.e., LOS D or greater) occur along several roadways in the project vicinity (refer to Exhibit 44). , 6.3.1 Draft Proposed Circulation Element Plan with Cherry Street Interchange The current Draft Proposed Circulation Plan that refers to a Cherry Street Connection (Over- crossing Interchange Alternative) is consistent with the recently adopted Circulation Plan roadway configuration within the City of Murrieta. A copy of the City of Murrieta Circulation Plan is provided in the Traffic Study in Appendix B. Exhibit 45 depicts the Land Use Plan, which results from the implementation of a Cherry Street Connection (i.e., Over- crossing / Interchange). The objectives of this alternative Circulation Plan were: 1) to maintain the Cherry Street Connection and any associated improvements wholly within the Temecula City Limits, and 2) maintain an alignment, which is consistent with City Traffic Engineering Design Standards. The Circulative Plan Alternatives major effects on the Land Use Plan include the following: The acquisition of part or all of the 2.5 and 1.25 acre out parcels becomes necessary to implement the revised Ynez Road alignment. ' • The acreage of the Service Commercial (Planning Area 12) is slightly reduced (± 1 acre). • The acreage of Residential Planning Areas 10 and 11 are slightly increased (± 5 acres). The acreage of Residential Planning Area 8 is slightly reduced (± 3 acres). The acreage of the Arroyo Park within Planning Area 9 is slightly increased (± 1.5 acres). Additionally, it should be noted, that in the immediate vicinity of the Harveston project, the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan differs from the existing City of Temecula Circulation Plan, and build -out , model assumptions, in the following ways: • The previously designated Date Street interchange at I -15 has been eliminated and replaced with a new interchange aligned near Cherry Street; , • A new grade separation of Date Street and Murrieta Hot Springs is proposed along with the re- designation of State Route 79 from Winchester Road to Date Street; and, • The Western Bypass now turns east and assumes an alignment just south of Cherry Street instead of ' continuing north into Murrieta. 6 -5 \\IR01 \VOLI\PROJFILE \1998 \8nl6201\Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dm ' � � y m M M w k d x y C a+ d N cd g U C S O U � C b c� .-r m ❑- O o O Q 6C'p n a 'y;• 90, b U o o � b3u3 HJNIA t y p a Z� ` Z U Ile' u <\ S F Z 0.90 a d. !q' 1.14 o h 0 13 oG k o W i P 0 0.43 MA 9 p ` O / / �@ a � 0 O r A �O � �• Y O $. Y 0 !5'3 % ' del de(Y O o9P o. � •. Ito r 6 y9 �.� \ J �'� •G goy 01 G S , 6 O A. m 6 / C 6 1y O Beb 013 1 O 0 o ? o od D o P n d ! m 2 oa $o Yf6 y a s o O O e os o' J Nb11 o w o d o , 0 V o 9 G � U O u O N Z O w U a > > J � J N p0 0 QQ V N z 'K =4L l I I i�1T rw W CD 0 r J / � J U 0 Q o \ O =aZ C II O O O 2oo Z) C A di I m I ' I' M \ u• U O �. O \\ UJ m a I I r HUH 2QZ M 'm m I r rn N QQ Q N CV Ei= rr WIZ m O � O O S W r+ " M 1 � OR 1 J I I I \♦ J I I 1 Y 1 , I ' N U U Z Y Q O O t0 W O G. uO W o- Ol � to U r � N v v ro w E o 0 rC U v O u u O r U . O � o o b 41 •2 ® o ' 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT 6.3.2 Date Street Over - Crossing Alternative This roadway configuration alternative proposes a Date Street over- crossing, which has been incorporated into the build -out model network component. A build -out traffic analysis was performed for this alternative. 6.3.3 Cherry Street Over - Crossing Alternative This roadway configuration alternative proposes a Cherry Street over - crossing, which has been ' incorporated into the build -out model network component. A build -out traffic analysis was performed for this alternative. A build -out traffic analysis was performed for this alternative. Environmental Assessment Because the three (3) above described circulation alternatives would essentially include the same quantity of development (i.e., 1,921 dwelling units and ± 112 . acres of Service Commercial), the majority of ' environmental issue impacts associated with the circulation alternatives would essentially be similar to the impacts identified in the EIR (i.e., biology, geology, etc.). Aside from the differences in the long -term City -wide traffic impacts, which are discussed below, the Cherry Street Connection Circulation Alternatives result in a slightly larger Arroyo Park (± 1.5 acres) and the Cherry Street Interchange or over - crossing alternatives would require the acquisition of additional property not currently under the developer's or City's ownership. Land Use Compatibility N These alternatives would result in similar land use compatibility impacts associated with the proposed project. Aesthetics/Light & Glare These alternatives would result in similar aesthetics/light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project. ' Transportation/Circulation (City Build -Out Traffic Findings) ' Draft Circulation Element Plan with Cherry Street Interchange (Refer to Exhibit 46) As can be seen by comparing Exhibit 44 (the Existing Circulation Element Plan) to 46, the Draft ' Circulation Element Plan with the Cherry Street Interchange provides for substantially better traffic operations along both the Winchester Road and Date / Cherry Street Corridors than the currently adopted City Circulation Element. Furthermore, the currently adopted City Circulation Element is no 1 longer consistent with the recently adopted City of Murrieta Circulation Element. Therefore, this circulation alternative would result in fewer long -term City -wide circulation impacts than the existing City Circulation Element Plan. It should be noted that the Draft Circulation Plan Alternative with a Date Street Interchange would result in similar City -wide circulation improvements beyond the City's existing Circulation Element. Mitigation is provided for the Harveston project, which requires the dedication of necessary right -of -way to facilitate City build -out circulation improvements. ' Date Street Over - crossing Alternative (Refer to Exhibit 47) • This alternative, which includes the elimination of the Cherry Street Interchange, results in significant and wide - spread degradation of service levels in the study area. 6 -8 \\IR01 \VOL]\PROIFILE \1998 \8n I6201\Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.do 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT • The loss of both access to- and -from the freeway results in significant diversion of traffic to remaining interchanges at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. , • The additional traffic burden, required to be served, by these interchanges would increase the capacity deficiencies at these locations, which are already evident in the v/c ratios calculated for the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan. , • Several segments of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road between I -15, and where the two intersect, show higher v/c ratios and a degradation in service levels (where they are not at , "F" already). • The Ynez Road corridor, which parallels I -15 on the east, would be required to serve an additional ' increment of traffic that is destined to the freeway via the interchanges at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In this scenario, Ynez Road would have to be upgraded to a six -lane facility north of Date Street. • The Jefferson Avenue corridor between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road would be impacted with higher traffic flows. , • The impact of adding traffic at the Winchester Road interchange is noticeable as far south as the Overland Drive over - crossing, where the service level would degrade from "B" to "C ". In summary, the Date Over - crossing alternative would result in a significant loss of access capacity ' at the freeway. This in turn would cause wide - spread negative impacts on traffic operations under the City build -out scenario. These impacts could only partially be mitigated by upgrading arterials parallel to the freeway. It is also important to note that the proposed alternative to construct Date Street as an over-crossing is inconsistent with the current Staff Recommended Draft Circulation Plan developed for the City of Murrieta. Cherry Street Over - crossing Alternative (Refer to Exhibit 48) The Cherry Street Over - crossing alternative has similar impacts on the study area roadway network to t the Date Street Over-crossing alternative. The Cherry Street Over-crossing alternative would also result in a loss of capacity for accessing the I -15 freeway. Since they both have very similar overall network configurations (with the difference being simply the location of the over - crossing), the differences in the build -out operational characteristics relative to the Draft Proposed Circulation Plan are subtle. As with the Date Street over-crossing alternative, the Cherry Street Over - crossing alternative results in a ' noticeable degradation of both the Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road corridors east of the freeway under the City build -out scenario. 6-9 \\IR01\VOLI\PROJFILE \1998 \8n16201 \Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dm , � o • w o 0 W W: x . Cd Cd ca U C 3 � g c b Cd BS'0 P' Ob c v o CO 83y�H�N o �0 o m i Z O 3 M � Y g U „ J F Z oee L 6 N 88'0 0 0 b o a P O �0 to •< � 049 t++ G N9tP ; o ° A ++ 0.37 IN ° �• �0 000 v 0 d o. G L �• 0.72 014 p07 ° SP 0 e .` o g. L 4 O p 0 8 �0 °D L S�t� i p d O l 1 O O b � 6 No j LL P L P o� JOJ NbH h� � ° a s 0 P 6 p QF�O� P o G ° o lFF p0 ei9 ` B � �O e 0 b P 0 m Z N N ° I O Z w U d J > N m 04 O V O z mom m m m m m �� r 7 � o u P� FJ F ~ v DC � U s L . a �u cd R Q cd U l p C z a b O Ob m v $ eso •Cd d13y ° o o c C u es'o u 09 g s 6 < r. eeo o < < � n o 3 C O w u7 < h % u Y g v F z a H W 0.77 o1e ° eeo 1.10 ° v to 0 i I 'Iv ° < 45 pD 0. i 0.38 N,gRGAR1SP 9 3 o o� o.� A A �. w i Oil cl ca / Q 0p0 0 .r O O p9 A. /• \ i OB E /� �' P O O M` 4 `V / ••\ 1ryb A. b ors F � o� e ho tr P A. $ \ I ii 0. O' G d ° 0 0 O r ib F o r A. 0 0 !n. 4 O� b O' J o P VJ NVH LL O� P ° o 0 6A ��g P�• 0 9 F- �b e o� b P !o. O U m V m o Z o W U J � J N m •O log JL O z ' 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT Air Oualit ' These alternatives would result in similar short-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. Because the Cherry and Date Street over - crossing alternatives would result in greater City build - out traffic impacts, these alternatives would also result in greater long -term air quality impacts. ' Noise These alternatives would result in similar short-term and long term noise impacts associated with the ' proposed project. Geology and Soils t These alternatives would generally result in similar impacts associated with compressible and expansive soils, landslides, and seismic ground subsidence compared with the proposed project. However, under the Cherry Street Interchange and the Cherry Street Over - crossing alternatives, setbacks for the two (2) out ' parcels would not be required, thereby eliminating the rectangular plateau's that would be created by preserving the out parcels in place. Hvdrologv and Drainage These alternatives would result in similar impacts related to increased surface water runoff. These alternatives also would result in similar impacts related to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. Biological Resources These alternatives would result in similar biological resources impacts associated with the proposed project. The Cherry Street Interchange and Over- crossing alternatives would result in a slightly larger Arroyo Park ( ±1.5 acres) than the originally proposed project. ' Public Services and Utilities These alternatives would result in similar impacts to public services and utilities as identified with the ' implementation of the proposed project. Status of Alternatives The above discussed circulation alternatives are feasible, however, the Cherry Street Connection Alternatives would require land not currently under the City or developer ownership. The Draft Circulative Plan Alternative with a Cherry Street Interchange does reduce long -term City -wide circulation impacts over the existing adopted City's Circulation Element. It should be noted that the Draft Circulation Plan Alternative with a Date Street Interchange would result in similar City -wide circulation improvements beyond the City's existing Circulation Element. Both the Date and Cherry Over- crossing ' Alternatives would result in greater long -term City -wide circulation impacts. 6 -12 ' \ \IR01 \VOLITROJFILE \1998 \8nl6201\ Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.do 5 N O zt T S. zzz U Cd ti C T g Cd a U o � b a �Sp o rc Cd E9 0 v _ > Qj O m l7 rc d t Lu a 'a i `z oo 0 u Y g G o N 0 F Z y 0.72 3 y �O � l7 � b 9B � OI r ' �'0 1.00 o U o O o (jam ` f J t O O 0 P 0 0 m o S ° Qj FGFWIP aO o 3 s0J 0 A / 0.40 A 9�o rc f 0 O o // 0. (� I o d ; �• ; 0.92 ) ? m� y O O� i+, O� •\ \ 0 6 i O� b a 15 °ayP \ e 2 0 A. O G f 0\ a ' � f. • � c'S 6 ,, � � �'� � O P o l o f 6 S � he o o A, 0 o C OP ?P t, ) p9 P G 8 F S ° b 0 0 b P 0 V d V N �I O (7 U m J 1 J N m 10 O z 4Mllr C••7� t 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT 6.4 COMMUNITY PARK DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ' 6.4.1 Alternative 1 - Equity Drive Realignment and Use of Out Parcel 6.4.2 Alternative 2 - Equity Drive Realignment and Use of Out Parcel ' 6.4.3 Alternative 3 - Equity Drive Realignment and Use of Out Parcel 6.4.4 Alternative 4 - Equity Drive Realignment and Use of Out Parcel 6.4.5 Alternative 5 - Equity Drive Realignment, But No Use of the Out Parcel Description of Alternatives The five (5) Community Park design alternatives were developed in response to suggestions / input from TCSD and the City of Temecula Planning Department, following their review of the original Conceptual Community Park Plan, refer to Exhibit 49. The park facility criteria provided by TCSD includes the following: Four lighted 300' baseball / softball fields with 2 full size soccer field overlays; 100 parking spaces within the park off Equity Drive; 25 parking spaces within the park off the Loop Road; Large snack bar / restroom facility (1,800 square feet); Small restroom adjacent to tot lot and picnic areas; and N • Ball field and park lighting to be approved by the City. Aside from the variation in the layout of park facilities (which do not change the impact analysis results), the five (5) proposed park design alternatives incorporate the following modifications: 1) the realignment of Equity Drive, and 2) the utilization of the 1.25 -acre out parcel in Alternatives 1 through 4. The rational ' for these modifications are: 1) the Equity Drive realignment provides for greater buffer / separation of the proposed park from the existing Winchester Highlands Business Park uses (i.e., Channel Commercial), and 2) the utilization of the 1.25 -acre out parcel allows for a more balanced park parcel configuration, ' which result in a greater efficiency of park facility layout. The discussion below summarizes each design alternative. It should be noted that the key difference between these alternatives for CEQA analysis purposes is the Equity Drive interface and how the out -parcel issue is addressed. ' 6.4.1 Alternative # 1 (refer to Exhibit 50— includes Equity Drive realignment and use of out parcel) This alternative was laid out based upon a sample sketch provided by TCSD Staff. This alternative includes all the required facilities outlined above. Although the ballfields meet the TCSD dimension criteria, there is some overlap in centerfield of the baseball / softball fields. This alternative requires approximately 12 light poles for the athletic fields. 6 -14 ' \ \1R01 \V0LI\PR0IF1LE\ 1998 \8n 16201 \Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.do 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT 6.4.2 Alternative # 2 (refer to Exhibit 50 — includes Equity Drive realignment and use of out parcel) This alternative is a slight variation of the alternative 1 layout with the parking lot off Equity Drive ' shifting below the picnic area. The snack facility was also moved in this alternative. This alternative includes all the required facilities outlined by TCSD above; however, in an effort to reduce the ballfield overlap, the 2 softball fields were reduced to 260' from 300'. The 2 baseball fields still remain at 300'. Additionally, 4 basketball courts (not a TCSD required facility) were provided in this plan. This alternative requires approximately 11 light poles for the athletic fields. 6.4.3 Alternative # 3 (refer to Exhibit 51 — includes Equity Drive realignment and use of out parcel) This alternative is a further variation of the alternative 2 layout with the parking lot, picnic area, and snack facility remaining in the same location as alternative 2. However, the ballftelds are laid out in a different manner with the diamonds side by side and the bleachers back to back. This configuration is the most efficient from a facility standpoint, and allows a direct path from the bleachers to the snack facility. This alternative includes all the required facilities outlined by TCSD above; however, in an effort to reduce the ballfield overlap, the 2 softball fields were reduced to 260' from 300'. The 2 baseball fields still remain at 300'. Additionally, 4 basketball courts (not a TCSD required facility) were provided in this plan. This alternative requires approximately 11 light poles for the athletic fields. 6.4.4 Alternative # 4 (refer to Exhibit 51 — includes Equity Drive realignment and use of out parcel) This alternative is a partial variation of the alternative 1 layout with the parking lots, picnic area, and tot lot / play area occurring in a similar location to that of alternative 1. The layout of the fields is however, modified from alternative 1 to be more efficient. The baseball / softball diamonds and bleachers are all back to back with the snack facility centrally located between the four fields. This altemative includes all the required facilities outlined by TCSD above; however, in an effort to reduce the ballfield overlap, the 2 softball fields were reduced to 260' from 300'. This alternative requires approximately 12 light poles for the athletic fields. 6.4.5 Alternative # 5 (refer to Exhibit 52 — includes Equity Drive realignment, but no use of the out p arcel ) This alternative is a slight variation of alternative 3 with the exception that the parking lot at Equity Drive and a smaller picnic area is shifted to allow for the out parcel to remain. The basketball courts provided in alternative 3 are eliminated in this alternative. The ballfrelds are laid out in the same manner as alternative 3 with the diamonds side by side and the bleachers back to back. This configuration is the most efficient from a facility standpoint, and allows a direct path from the bleachers to the snack facility. This alternative requires approximately 11 poles for the athletic fields. 6 -15 \ \IROI \VOLI\PROIFILE \1998 \8nl6201 \Sept EI R\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.do J P Harveston ' EIR Lennar Communities rGT Lor IOT IDI ANO Pqurte®.T mnPGw ro AMYPQpBp@Y19; 9AHI1 MYAY6.t PPSGZ¢dT9ViFA ®MYARW IO / ACNSANOAlR IRCULAYYpll!®IDtRN, C�/ HAiIDIWAC6S9lAlP. I }GPOVNPARI; - B&la AESDENTIAL 8V01GREENRACKGRDGND V 1'] u AO r ' � Tor car ecmuolrsACrsNrTRPEss .5 OOTPARQ:I. ACCE.S SHADE iREBS P�� COAAmNPIVT IV -0'WmE RESMEN IAL ON SGlEEP PARKII:O WALL V�0.'RIOAREA 15 SPAMS PARKQiO u OUT PARCEL %SPA 1.2 AC ST RESIDENTIAL �\ SO ON AGES PARKING / NONUAGNPATION •\ SPAS RPSTROpAl MSM B ARKACCPNTTPFP AIAI MG( STORAG � NMmG(1,000 SP. AlwJ ®AWE AReoa - \ O< EWNE RWR AC nano rARrrs; rlASn lEarrAass smELwxaum LwKee: � \ \. ' I. SOP[HALLAND SOCCBRFIF3.D3 - SHALLBELIGHLED WrIH'IAIbC0I3GP'III1G' rb ACCOAWOOA'IEMGHPGSx �\ S PAR[�ALK 3. REPPRTOPLANPMATEWA1.GHm0A�,9 WRIxP£ VARMIIC4 AND 5m. Agl11NrtYTH M WALL 5. PARKIS T.csn. NAINPAIN ®. \ CAP6 SCREEN 1 Exhibit 49 G 300 600 1200 Original Community Park Plan 7 MM November 2000 Cd o� x u X 4 Q z OA It r M M M " =* W i■e M r r W k 5 v. + f > ® N t r � J }f z ri■� ri �r r r .� �n r Ill uw Harveston EIR Lennar Communities ti _ ri LT � aWie. { 1 <0 \ l.Lary / 1 Alternative 5 \ NOTE: If the Out - Parcel is not incorporated into the Pads, ' additional acreage will need to be provided elsewhere so that the total park site rernairu 16 acres Exhibit 52 FWIP MM N.T.S. November 2000 Community Park Alternatives 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT Environmental Assessment Because all of the above described park alternatives are the same size (i.e., approximately 16 acres) and essentially occur in the same location as the original Community Park Plan, the environmental issue impacts associated with the park alternatives would essentially be similar to the impacts identified in the EIR. The following are the major differences and issues, which may affect the feasibility of the alternatives: • The alternatives would require acquisition of additional property not currently under the developer's or City's ownership (alternatives 1 through 5 would require land for the Equity Drive realignment, and alternatives 1 through 4 would require out parcel acquisition). • The alternatives do provide a greater buffer between the Community Park and existing Channel Commercial. • The alternatives 1 through 4 do provide for a more efficient park parcel with a greater amount of useable area. Land Use Compatibility These alternatives would avoid the potential land use compatibility impacts (between the park and Channel Commercial) associated with the proposed original Park Plan. Aesthetics/Light & Glare These alternatives would result in similar aesthetics/light and glare impacts associated with the proposed development of the original Park Plan. ' Transportation/Circulation These alternatives would result in similar impacts related to increased project traffic generation. ' Air Qualit These alternatives would result in similar air quality impacts associated with the proposed original Park Plan. Noise ' These alternatives would result in similar noise impacts associated with the proposed original Park Plan. Geology and Soils r These alternatives would generally result in similar impacts associated with compressible and expansive soils, landslides, and seismic ground subsidence. 1 6 -20 \ \IROI \VOLI\PROIFILE\ 1998 \8n 16201\Sept EI R\ E IR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dac 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT Hydrology and Drainage 01 These alternatives would result in similar impacts related to increased surface water runoff. These alternatives also would result in similar impacts related to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. Biological Resources ' These alternatives would result in similar biological resource impacts associated with the original Park Plan. Public Services and Utilities These alternatives would result in similar impacts to. public services and utilities as identified with implementation of the original Park Plan. However, under alternatives 1 through 4, no grading setbacks , for the 1.25 -acre out parcel would be required, thereby eliminating the rectangular plateau that would be created by preserving the out parcel in place. This results in more useable area for park facilities. Status of Alternative These alternatives are typically feasible. They also meet the City and Project Applicant objectives; however would require land not currently under City or developer ownership. These alternatives do not substantially reduce impacts associated with the original Plan, although they do provide for a greater buffer and more efficient park layouts. These alternatives should remain under consideration.. 6.5 CEQA ALTERNATIVES 6.5.1 Alternative 1— No Project/No Development 6.5.2 Alternative 2 — Development Under Existing General Plan/Zoning 6.5.3 Alternative 3 — Alternative Location A detailed analysis of Alternative 1 is included in this section. However, alternatives 2 and 3 were dismissed due to the reasons discussed on the following pages. 6.5.1 Alternative 1 —No Project/No Development Description of Alternative An evaluation of a "No Project/No Development" Alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2). Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented and the site would remain in its current undeveloped state. The No Project/No Development alternative would restrict development of the project site by not allowing the construction of the uses proposed as a result of the Specific Plan. Land uses within the project area would remain as they are currently and no development identified in the Specific Plan would occur. 6 -21 \\IRO I wOL1\PROJFILE \1998 \8n 16201\Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dm ' 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT • Environmental Assessment ' Land Use Compatibility This alternative would avoid the potential land use compatibility impacts associated with the proposed project. This alternative would not be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan, as it would not implement the Land Use Plan for the site. 1 Aesthetics/Light & Glare This alternative would avoid the potential aesthetics/light and glare impacts associated with the proposed ' development of the Specific Plan. Transportation/Circulation This alternative would avoid all project - specific impacts related to increased project traffic generation. This alternative would not contribute to short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. However, traffic /roadway improvements proposed for the Specific Plan area, as identified in Section 5.3 of this EIR, would not be implemented, and right -of -way dedication would not be provided. Under this alternative, the City's long -term circulation goals and needs would not be met, therefore, this alternative would result in greater long -term City -wide circulation impacts by impairing the development of a Citywide road network. Air Quality This alternative would avoid all air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. No short-term or long -term increases in air emissions would result from the alternative, as the project site would remain in its existing, undeveloped state. Noise } This alternative would avoid all noise impacts associated with the proposed project. As the project site 1 would remain in its current state, short-term construction noise to adjacent sensitive receptors would not occur. Because this alternative would not generate additional vehicular traffic, no long -term traffic related noise impacts would result to on -site and off -site land uses. i Geologv and Soils ' As no grading for development of residential and service commercial land uses would occur with this alternative, it would avoid the potential impacts associated with compressible and expansive soils, landslides, and seismic ground subsidence. ' Hydrology and Drainage This alternative would avoid the potential project impacts related to increased surface water runoff. This alternative would not result in the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces. This alternative also would not result in the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. Water quality and the amount of surface water runoff would remain the same as the existing conditions. i 6 -22 \ \IR01 \VOLI\PROIFILE\ 1998 \8n16201\Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.do 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT Biological Resources This alternative would allow the current undeveloped state of the project site to remain. This alternative would not allow for the perpetual protection and enhancement of habitat of the blue line stream onsite through creation of a riparian environment (i.e., the proposed Arroyo Park). While the habitat of the stream bed would be avoided under this alternative, the habitat enhancement area and its potential inhabitants might be questionable under this "No Project/No Development" alternative. Public Services and Utilities 1 This alternative would not result in impacts to public services and utilities as identified with implementation of the Specific Plan. The "no project" alternative would not result in an increase in current demands on existing public service facilities and services that accommodate the site. Demands would remain minimal. Status of Alternative ' The assumption that no development at all would occur within the project boundary is an unlikely outcome based on existing zoning and the existing General Plan land use designations. This alternative does not meet the Project Applicant's objectives such as provision of residential, park/recreational and public /institutional (i.e. school) uses. Nor does it meet the City's objectives for the site such as: , • Provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for all economic segments of the community; • Develop new residential housing, which is compatible with the character of existing individual neighborhoods and minimizes land use incompatibility; • Encourage the use of Specific Plans in the undeveloped areas of the community; and , • Ensure that a full range of public facilities and services are provided to meet the needs of the , community. • Provide a complete and integrated mix of residential, service commercial, recreational, public and open space land uses. • Provide a land use pattern and intensity of development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking. • Ensure that right -of -way dedication is provided to meet the City's long -term circulation goals and needs as identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. It is, however, environmentally superior to the proposed project and remains under consideration. 6 -23 \ \IR01 \VOLI\PR03FILE \1998 \Snl6201\Sept EIR\ EIR- 8- OD\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dw 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HARVESTON EIR PROPOSED PROJECT 6.5.2 Alternative 2 — Development Under Existing General Plan/Zoning The Harveston project proposes 1,921 dwelling units, which is below the general plan buildout. Additionally, the proposed number of vehicle trips from the Specific Plan is lower compared to the ' buildout of the General Plan. The site has a SP zoning designation and has been analyzed as a Specific Plan area under the General Plan EIR. The currently proposed Specific Plan has made minor changes to existing General Plan land use configurations by shifting certain uses around. The following lists the major differences in the Harveston Specific Plan: Location of the community park has changed from a more internal location to be moved adjacent to the service commercial (across and adjacent to Ynez Road) to provide more City -wide ' visibility of the park. The currently proposed specific plan includes more open space and recreation facilities than depicted on the General Plan land use map for the site. A riparian habitat is proposed, as an Arroyo Park to preserve and enhance the US waters and Fish and Game streambed. The Arroyo Park contains an area of 13.8 acres and is located across Date Street, within Planning Areas 10 and 11. ' Based on the above rationale, it is determined that the proposed Harveston project would already be creating less impacts compared to the General Plan buildout assumptions. Therefore, development under existing General Plan/Zoning would not be an environmentally superior alternative. No further analysis is warranted. 6.5.3 Alternative 3 — Alternative Location ' This alternative considers locating the proposed project at a different site. This alternative is required by CEQA and is intended to evaluate the option of the development of the proposed project at another site. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, any alternative site evaluated herein must have similar characteristics as the project site including size, landform, and amenity opportunities. Development would include the same type of use, density, and intensity as the proposed project site. However, as the City of Temecula has become more urbanized, potential sites appropriate for development of specific plan projects have become more scarce. Currently, the proposed Harveston project site is one the last remaining pieces of undeveloped land proposed for a specific plan. ' Due to the fact that the City does not have a comparable area within its jurisdiction, the alternative location would not be a viable option. No further analysis is warranted. 6 -24 \\IR01 \VOLI\PROIFILE\ 1998 \8nl6201\Sept EIR\ E IR- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dm w x� FW • Q fr7 C V CG p" dA a 5 Z 0 -• V F c 3 ° 3 a 3 a 3 a E E E •E E `? T E V Q •° U O Q.E Q.E k c e c c C U U C 3 u 3 u 3 u 3 u a F a ? E ? E ? E ? E �• � d CS L � L � L � L F E „ " r r u c ,c . c k7 •fl > L L E N .a „ o o N 73 n. L ou n, to a ° W = m F a ay „° C7 L ea e.E EE o r � � On c o W m w a E= y 'E - c .2 > O m w z¢ r > 0 0 E c° a c �.E a � • ° r � b� 3 0 0� r � � w ^_•o F ° " c o �a v °o aa� o ai A P� . ° F P.� G•C U y ., Q ° x a zb a Q � F W W W ;D •o � O G O a m � •—° u •D 3 F W p ' � 3 � •3 � o $' 3 '3, u W d z EE i, EEi. E E o a .E .E 0 E •E E E E E cn c E E E U q U m ❑ m rJ °� •D - h tin F c c c U 3 3 u 0 3 u c m a U Q V• T V• T _ u o = ma ° c E .� �_ � u w > w Q F E O € o € o 3 3 0 3 UO O - o 0 a w u O 'c u u o'o ¢ u a cy ' V a c c.c c u �,•v v t o W Z Z P° c N 'n a .E to y 'z O W E N O w • n O O w. w O w E 7 C a ao•cy 3 fl •cy 3 oGy c W y p c j a .E t E W a . °_ E fl a .5 w 7 U u E E , w0 dOd E= Es a�� 'o m c E Z �, a� .� ai .� � • a"i E CJ b cd i7 U d E E ° E E E E E A F U C z> � a.T 1 E E rz ro a O O> . c LU U o ro E E a F 5 E E A to q cx7 C Y C F L 0 o i . ? L .E t y a t 0� ° E Q' .E H 0 3 .E E� O rn c v�dt— � 3 Q'�, m > F z � ,E � •� °° � u b u C td J r c 8 E g c 'h ❑ .�g o m b k C U 7 L 0 h m z E u V c v Kj O O U OD — O S w Z z C o �L o o enE o °C4 o c ac o a� CA U O y O O D U O" O L O A L D L L O 'C a L x a° d CL .UL w x� w p u �9 w ;4 v E ❑ v •o W� Oi E o 0 E E3 a3 a z z > w .- .- o u Q v 3 Q a Q a 0 d ¢ c 0 F Z v u •- c u � ► U "� i N '- � '- E '- E u _ u � a i5 E u o u u n a ? • E E n c u° u o 0 y > a� w 5 w u •E E o E.ob E ^°° °- u.o o c U G h ti Rf U .Y h w a cz 1 w c c. �E� av° —o � time aao- �aac'a o r � '' 3> o� o —° � y o_ E c u• u a K i ti `° y 3 w 7 . U b Z7 'O ' .u a a a n p ` .c •= W F _ F W L21 a . T F �> w 3 a 3 373s u E 0 -0 O? ' -- W � E 5 d o _ _ z F �E E E E FE F O <a Y 7 3 u 3 u 3 u u L o� 0 3 u 14 5 en CL 0 E' U E s c E° C C G G Qw W L L L L d 3 3 R 3 3 m � a � a •E � .� 8 .O C cf c o Gy 3 c o �' a c o> $ c E a.0 ° z O 2 � 4, � •° � ai -� L .y .?', o E , 'z < 0 i itl d y N r 0 h N iC O d w U v .�.1 0 L •� a d CL N d y 0 y RU C t L p L C y w p Q Y L d' ow G. W F - W O F F n q >° 0. oa �p zW �E w O�pd � E 1 5 � a� � d 0 F as 3 a o •v -. h 3 c � F _ � a`i v ' •' u � Ud � _E o � E M E = E ¢.5x aQ a Q.E 0 F Z O 5 5 U L L m C U d CJ L CJ L ' U F 7 E F c c a d � c �QZn R y h U .a c� y 'W � y � •� � c C v 00 w Z w 'Q —, L N 4 U fil run L G= O CL A .V. W fL F } u ,7 . F ._ � s F 3 L a •v � - 7.0 LONG -TERM IMPLICATIONS HARVESTON EIR OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7.0 LONG -TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7.1 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS According to the CEQA Guidelines, this section is concerned with "...the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." It should not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Development of Harveston Specific Plan may induce .various types of growth to occur in the City of ' Temecula such as new construction of residential, commercial, and retail structures, and increased employment opportunities in the City and the region. However, the majority of the project is residential with supporting park and recreational facilities (i.e., 438.9 acres) which tends to be more growth- ' accommodating rather than growth- inducing. The increase in residential uses will in turn have the potential to cause an increase in demand for utilities, community services, fire protection facilities and personnel, and increased police personnel. t The proposed Harveston Specific Plan includes a 112.4 -acre service commercial area in addition to the neighborhood mixed uses (i.e., retail, restaurant, etc.) within the Mixed Use Village Center, that will provide an employment base for the residents of the Harveston community, as well as the residents of the City of Temecula. Additionally, no major extension of overall infrastructure (i.e., roads, sewer mains, utility lines, etc) outside the Specific Plan boundaries would occur that would induce additional growth. Implementation of the Specific Plan project would be growth- inducing in terms of a localized. employment increase. However, the increase in local employment is a major goal of the City's General Plan. As indicated in Section 5.3, Transportation and Circulation, the project's buildout does not trigger the need for major circulation improvements such as a freeway overcrossing or interchange. ' The Specific Plan project site, located within the City limits, represents an area containing undeveloped land, surrounded by existing or entitled development to the northeast, east, and south. As such, it can be viewed as a logical extension of the development that currently exists east, and south. It can also be viewed as an opportunity to provide a complementary, cohesive land use to surrounding areas. ' P: ""8%N16201\ M \7 0.LONGT WDOC 7 -1 Z } E, f U � 1 , o < c Zl. m'a .E `o v '❑ o v 'c a 72 E � UFaG UFUmG UF0.G UF0.mrn O p u_ y } Z F Q ct c c a y a o 0 0 0 06 a y 4 ig O T rn h j o u0 L a C V' O p y u t c G ro te 4 a U o F' L .E c c v a ' F > m O � v Y ' u1. T c c L H F R � F i a m v V °v .> > 4 r ✓ F V] 0 F \ U a F � U U � m ' 1 x F� h O T T O � U U U V F a 0 Z c c LL O o c h o _ V V V H E E o_E E`oC �Z a m O Q O O L W 5 p p v o —y' E o o u E .E o tq � `, °°' G Z, c u y O t u m v� "> C E [xl E— y E .'-' .E o H _ v 'E ,E 2 u i c a z y n u o E o c o E'c 'o E K g —° c �' o° V¢ U¢ n p v a s .E .E t o a` a Z CC F ci a s A a — N � s , G v U E E 3 = `u u 1 , z + o } F \ U a L � F fL m O QI C ' ., u d Z u c G O u o v F c � J o �z p F FBI rh m o. E o o E a T i `o C Z c F n, Z F v a a a 0 JE ..0 Ems° 03z yzx� � c� EVU`.m E�7Z F �j9p 30 �p bJVL� G� 7L E mE 0.2a 9> cr • • • a a � Z N r N < Z u C C C F J U Z 5 � F F U' � Fz I�1 ° Z O m Z Y Y z 0 �I a� OF a'� UFaO z O E >, . E Z a m h F �a O C y a > > CL' vUi T v i U L y N ', L t TJ E U y U U E U C'2 U L C v O h � m V n. z E ,�-� h v o 3 °' p G. E C t o U �o a o •.', u 24 _ b U •U - ca — � D L O ....� F F C C > O i� A O U [.°'J ,c N � . U C � t�J' v n a; L H. 4 3 Sc 0.' EO `� u 8 ` O Z L[] . ,Q �^ r `� C� E C L .Q °' z � ,-• U ' o U ^ L . [I] v W C �' 9 N � N` a yEEo'°�rtsvy'E� Euu a¢vU u 3 ° `o F ' p> $ u L 9 t G o m N u E o • u E a 9 °m m m- u . N u Z c 'c n v T V }- N L OC VUmE96r`J Ut��.a OGd�9 > >.� OV N. O�i'^ O 1: o o H U¢ :'. 3 ti C° d a�vzEEEL . . c a` ri v s 1 O V Z H i s o m' >EEm o z Q � ••I C? a u 0 OC p i Z � C U U � 1 � > c m° ° C Z Y Y •n � F}• ie o n o ' O W E M E a c C4� u UFa'q U N E TE Q v O E o n E �o E a E an' o o� F m Z F � 4 � G O � C a R d } O 9` D: 6 O y O c o z m n u n �.m .o o u E t b E E u n .v w v L N E v iO c v 'a U u o` o m� c� � u❑ a �� u _ v o,E Na�9LEs - S E E `u c 9 S u c n '�+ o r E v i .E a n U r EE `� A a E u E E .2 Eh vm'.' -'_'pa ' o U a z U E c¢ E t .E m a a vi z Fy i Z O f m C7 � FUV z _ o ' V < c O F CL W vi O n O Lq U y m Z `n C. E s E v o c oa o O `c � y >• c 3 °' r „ ,o ai 'o v] a y � o m u� n .. E- A mc c Ea u. ° - cA?v u �❑ v o f C� c u U .a 'E � o ro s Fc a m o l o ° u a u ' 2 ��oc._�5,:�cna�h c COC`a �°..n. ��o��.V U z n O m a Z O ' } F. G z ' V ° > E > z v a� u O Gv V O a �� UFa n05 UFUrnaC CJFG z � y °- m 6 72 E ,• v - �i U .E Z. v v 9 ° � '> c a >, E c .> E E� E ❑ vny°'.� g >¢ ° c '�`� o5 ^ fin.°' u�t m?.o -E Gy ro� O E 32UU E > ' O o a Z Gr e^e O Z > C OF FUV z o � < s z w W C W E rj i C C b C U .Q G N r �9 QUO s Z � Y i z� =3 ,3 Z F� � w , m >, y ' a < 0 0 00 �' °' G •'� u h x C 6 p U U w v o > o c c c r O n z� E c k u v c c> W o v.a U �l Q E ° u y u y� t° E c y 3 0� v W(°i �� d G3 >9Y O2 C C W.� UCC'°'O� c` u c � °' 2 u. a y v v v `o " c. � ° �,E v ❑.o m v g. ' Q ° c EQ= �v� v 3FO�2' � °8 t N z t ' O F u v x U O a 1 0 Z F � U Q F w U G m O F GC C c o m e O 2 h E E V C a c y c n Z z c F =3 — ° 3 0 u u p o 4; '� G 6.J v u G c n'm O . F O= u a m E s .� 7 E O.E u d E � m E y Z F O 0 6 O a u d O y u a u Y O C G m T cJ L L L a T c 'a U V T p v - r ca . h o G u A h O E u o G p u � yv� u n°n°ac am awn 'D >E ° u o u c go E A m ? A— LTj o ci y z o o <o a U y � � m a d z a y � a V U ¢ m OmUO mF no c ym O � O � E r c ?,• E� a � E :n a b fi Q , x� OFa � UE6 OFa � �L1 C, z m u m �. O .E w a o 0 0 .L ° .2 M E 72 Z5 a' v 2 0 c 20 a EP Q e a .> n _a E m u> o o u v t n o o o ,� o ° 9° a.F e7 = e E .o '` 0 2 c u v a s �'. U 2 :7 c u c ° o E c ° o o E° s y` 2 u C v O u O � � r z� O <a .] u ° c°n E o ws obi C7 a L u t o r� C Z Y. F p U V 1 � , a f� __ r F+� O V O CW > _ � c O u i v UFaF°1 UFaF[v V Fa F¢7 UFmv'� UFa n n V IL U C a o o O s u 9 U R R= h �v u v" v> d ca 'n v v v 3 mn ! LLJ E o E E 'a o ° u ° c E E._ > u c O O E R oo z L V z 3 c o c Z C N V w L _ Z F U F CG c u w ' . EL'J �..I y' � UFC n r UFam UF4.� z o _ H E r 2 Z y C a o c o wi =-G V"E ° n �,? ° tea QUv °cam u v . ov uo .n Z G ° o z. o >• E � o v F ys cm �in c �aL N >u.aw3 . a� � E N J p .'° c u n a i c E °' `�' � 3 >, v� w v `o � � v z c v ❑ v 3uy 'c v E we c ,C, a;s c��Nh U Q E w ow N � � U c S Z U en U = co 0 o =G x z 3.E _ o Z F _F � G ? o0 w O O `u o c C pi Z n n_ v �' v m v m v m O �U E Z x Y Z O c c �I� UFa� UFa� UFmrn UFmv� c U U m y z y a o 0 0 0 O a v 00 LU C u v n7 o >u c m y¢ o.g OC n arnc2 = n c.n ._ v O .E y L �+ n u 9 U O G '� c`J O C❑ - C '52 ci O U B p 3 •"' 9 y V >. L O T u r v vOi u 0 u M A m O a '� E ' � � W O v O N V 9 j 0 �+ A G � U U C u ❑� V 'i' m u V O V C C p vi O C C ° E °- ,c E_ t E E u E'S �cH U. a`�mc ° AU �uQ an aEmH aOv� �•5�nv]� N �rj d S C a ° m W ° o m U m 0 .� U' � • �n v � 'o R V V tia � v E u 0 r t• ' � U G U a a o 0 0 C , 2 u m y u 00 u m z � in = of ci E `6 �C� ? t G TEL a CS UFi� UF UFa ° ti u "m E a z u ti a .E o Z °❑ n L >u n m u v u E o m a y D G O O O �t m c2 3 � '�a cao �° u .E u¢�� .ucc`u'ocL v E z ° U o onn E v o L c o s o n .o y E E '„ a . u E 2 `o n Q c s u ai E o Z .= `o o e 2 a 3 0 EC °: O' zcGc� hcc° E E�cu ' o° 0 �U Z o u c C c 5 r7i Z r n ° a U i m U n u c, in m '_ E a m. o o u c= Q u �O O n ,. a q n Y v U n v E 9 v A e`J ' E o < �. u L , n N Z c ❑� ?J 'o u c_ a m u 3 ° u` L m L LL H n _c .o ° E❑ o 'C h m Z z v - a z 0 i Z 1 _O Y E. V 1 V Ord F c E o I a ° a U Z duo` 0 0 .o C UFa� OF ia OF U EL z �i c c G� T O � y y x y " Z < O O O O ° FF eo L I o a y u= o� �_ u L E c i °' c o i 3 E a ': , G c E u u n Z c W E '� .a `o Q7�;= '� a- r .= .o .� : ° a •T.o c� E O o ff so E� � a e s L E Z m a c u E € v o .h T U y t u L y c E n '`,.` E v m e E o c o Q E A � ° 'ot "c ova . °_UCccac a omc E U 6uUm v Ta V1 'v. O U O O P IZ xO o7F a I Z V F } Z U F a F� w s o 0 0 p' O vE n o u vE n v w o e T u E A 'o a UFmv�i u UFmrn UEmin �U� OFmv� `EUC z � v ry as =� V 3,n7 U 3 ya UOv U 3 �UFUc E-E i�Frl m Z F < 0 0 0 0 z c u . ¢ c p c d € cam' U r o m E v eu z ro n o u o a_ 9 E g m Z 0. F F O ' a 1 _o F � U U G z o0 v: ° E a, o E C , Z > E z z U� s� O , U F az � w c 0 CL� UFG °O �UGO i F >��nOUF m� O w 6 L 9 V ~ V U� C n u E u i�❑ E E � } v Z F C C G 6 d < O O O i G > > O s T m 2 V n 9 i,.. o m o o s a ._'• iO ..�.. Ego h a '° .- a m ° u C " u E r v C N? T = 4 N E v M- 0 o t U C U d 9 U C W U 0 '� O .E t i - a ` ._ . ° c n o o ] u v . o` c n` u U ^� c Y m7 u _c v E c = E° o " _ >, n � E E E Sco v 3 '2 7o E.E o, ' c E u r ?3 '` .� y a.a ° U E'E u v y n v v c n u o N 9 m v > va E — `o > s ^ U O o u c" c -� r .E c D o .� n °' �, > o o u ?•.c o' ' m j G FE v ` o a 3 u c 2 o ' v v v m.N o V a .E • • • • • `� Q � 'E � 'o r�7 u � e O U Z ^� U V y 0 � ❑ E .0 r� QQ ma U m 3 u `�^ � z � V 4 } Z U F p; U � U n Hy L � C F' G QF Q'� QL � v C C1d z C C T T T T O C❑ C v 7 U o❑ .,f p ',j C a u T u� c E.` E- E E c >.E E O 5 F »ri�❑UF 9rn UFUrn C UF UFUri❑ UFUri q z V c C u 'o F E 12 Q a C O O O O � u w E E L v c `o v E n n c E E s v= L u E E y u z °❑ T rn -' E °" n z , u c rn � L '� u n u E c >> 9E c u E E o >❑ n u _ F V u D ° E J❑ V > N u a V O G a) .� V .o v u ° F > > N y` E C u E -° E r v _° v a c E c ?: U •'-' o'E F❑° E a` h n❑ v `o a c 3 i s o E U r � c 0 O F Z C , �i z u `' a s � i � � L :z E � n ►.i LC m a o c c O v v 0 z ICI U V O a G = cS A m 9 'O c 9 C V C C G C W E G a E a E a` c v m V dy G. y G U Q O O V O V 8 pp U � 7 " i S• v ie E id A p s E� cE °'E uuE 0 F � UC� O ' 1 F tL ry E n E nom' n o F n9 E a N - � U O = U 0 — a r Z E O n n O u u O y u O u u T `o c .3` i•E�." TE E,>, yyc >.E E,>, cE>o. Ems" ' r UEelh UEmrn VFUrn� OF Urn L7 OF Urn C) u Urn= °- U CL > CL> v j�0 >.j ' TCO U •v TU C i „y U3a U3c Oro a`P_' a'SEc ��r m c � z � C a c o o c o 0 0 E m u u &.2 Esc »c E 3 T . - >> v'u o E 7u�E w, m9 cU �2c o ' n u m c.^; ❑C Log rc u— �_ 2 a cy'O E3o �,3ou — v y €O�� q 5 u .y �u L iu U .v Q � C 9 O :2 E c v E u u `o o n T.c c n E. g?°' you -""u�a c .E n i'c 'ou ata� -° n.33 F ri° a`aEnuC3y� ¢ 33 QLO a. °_� ° z a 9 � ' n . N 0.i Z 1 O Y Z V F V � N U � v O � V G C i o z � 4 z m, a c hl o 7 o ci E u y W E a 5 a `o u � v a 3 E 1 � F O � N O ` 1 HARVESTON EIR 9.0 R EPORT PREPARATION RESOURCES 9.0 REPORT PREPARATION RESOURCES 9.1 ORGANIZATION AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF TEMECULA Community Development Department Debbie Ubnoske ' Dave Hogan Patty Anders ' Community Services Department Herman Parker Cathy McCarthy ' Public Works Department Jerry Alegria Annie Bostre -Le Riverside County Fire Department Mr. Norm Davidson, Fire Safety Specialist Temecula Police Department Mr. Lynn Fanene Sr., Crime Prevention ' & Plans Officer OTHER AGENCIES Eastern Municipal Water District Warren Back, Civil Engineer ' Rancho California Water District Andy Webster, Planning & Capital Projects Manager ' Riverside County Flood Control District Terry Decker, Engineering, Technician II Zully Smith, Senior Civil Engineer ' The Gas Company Abel Garcia, Planning Associate ' Southern California Edison Company Rudy Bargas, Customer Service Planner Department of Transportation Linda Grimes, Chief Office of ' Forecasting/IGR/CEQA Review Riverside Transit Agency Steve 011er Temecula Valley Unified School District Janet Dixon, Coordinator of Facilities Services ' P91998%N16201EIR19AR RT PREP.DO 9-1 HARVESTON EIR 9.0 REPORT PREPARATIO RE 9.2 REPORT PREPARATION STAFF EDAW, Inc. Jayna Morgan Alia Hokuki Doni Adhiningrat ' Ramsey Badawi Khara Covington Jane Park 9.3 CONTRIBUTORS Traffic and Circulation Bob Davis, Wilbur Smith & Associates Noise Impact Analysis Hans Giroux, Giroux & Associates Geology Investigation Mike Cook, Converse Consultants Conceptual Grading Bob Washington & Nicholas Biro, RBF ' Hydrology and Hydraulics Andy Gong, RBF Biological Resources Lisa Kegarice, Tom Dodson & Associates 9.4 REFERENCES Converse Consultants. 1990. Geology Investigation. Converse Consultants. 1999. Summary of Geotechnical Conditions. 1 Converse Consultants. 1999. Summary of Geotechnical Conditions. Giroux and Associates. 1999. Noise Impact Analysis. Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates. 1999. Harveston Hydrology and Hydraulics Investigation. ' Temecula, City of. 1995. Development Code. Temecula, City of. 1993. General Plan. , Tom Dodson and Associates. 1999. Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Determination for Harveston Specific Plan. Tom Dodson and Associates. 1998. 404 and 1603 Jurisdictional Delineation for Winchester Hills. Tom Dodson and Associates. 1999. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Ephydryas editha quino) for Harveston Specific Plan. Tom Dodson and Associates. 1999. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Harveston Development (formerly Winchester Hills), Permit # 980023500 -SDM. Wilbur Smith and Associates. 1999. Traffic Impact Study. P: \1"8%N16201\EIRW,. MPORT PREP.DOC 9 -2 HARVESTON FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The following Exhibits 12 & 13 were modified to correct typographical errors through the Public Hearing process and added to the administration record on July 12, 2001. 1 1 P. \1998 %N16201� OFCON7,DOC q yv ao d N A a a v .+ h O v r �i V �' �• I ca v v '� k v R. p cV O a W e u m V u W w u 1� C3 u cn O Q h� ts C O A C w« A p v N t9 C O W a to O a oo E o N Q Cd w U w u u p °> a u N B v a .� > v a F b ° u .? to ° v v o ci CZ ■ ••` W ■ EDf • � : Cn p • of O ■ d • � ■ 1 G� d • d ■ O `G • ■ •• ■ I • - x 1 . a o , � j 3 . o N w � 1 W • H j ••'• z ■ Y o W Y v ■ A •• avow zanu , • w 0 C2 bySa �� =4 t` O M M N v 'v-' a �0 0 w 'D R. r n, w v u'O w N ... " is a v II. 'd 7 w 3 'D �a ."i+ U N +• u m .0 u 40.: `e .0 cd a° a v sc . ~ x v a a a" o "; o x v F G w q ❑ C« w CF u be rL a) r u O .0 w ❑ a G O w w u u w u v C " C ..0 id U u y v a «. U v u o u N a u E P, " v u n ° c v ❑ > a w w °3 v w v `n N ,�- • ti ` w u W^ a '> o^ w a a o u c .o w v a a C, O •O .� O u « N 40 n n v v• W O u w ro v❑ nt w (V u v u o r u . v n a) O c v () w> �vo eo« ro v u u v a .� u u o u N :d a o W �°e° o o h � d o °' m O v v a y Cl F v a.ti o u .X w v q .a x Z z O P. cC E " �° dE v a >` v w e� a v❑ U v o u vw O O n ' lNtld N33LJ N3153H3NIM ONIISIX3 � I � \ a a \ 0 I � — •�..�.,� •'�- �V " �� rea . I • ■ 000 U � I aroa Z3NA _