HomeMy WebLinkAboutHarveston Final EIR \ ,r
Environmental Harveston
A Lennar community with a lake at its heart
Final
•
Response t• Comments
City of
February 2001
1
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FINAL EIR
SCH #99041033
r
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
1
FEBRUARY 2001
I HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS TABL O CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 .0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... ............................1 -1
1.1 Authority for Preparing Response to Comments .............................. ............................... 1 -1
1 .2 Format .................................................................................................. ............................1 -1
1 .3 Letters Received .............................................................................. ............................... 1 -2
2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS .................................................... ............................2.1
3.0 ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................. ............................3 -1
3.1 Revisions/Edits Based on Comment Letters .................................... ............................... 3 -1
3.2 Updated Land Use Plan ................................................................... ............................... 3 -1
3.3 Revisions/Edits Based on Informal City Staff Comments ............... ............................... 3 -1
Appendix A
Al Resolution Number 91 -5 -8, Board of Directors of Rancho California Water District.
A2 US Fish and Wildlife Service Correspondence, dated September 13, 1999.
A3 Biological references used in responses to Letter #9, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
I�•
PAMSNSN16201 BIMTABU OFCONMDOC j
HARVESTON
FINAL FIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION
• 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact. Report (EIR) for
the Harveston Specific Plan project. This document contains all information available in the public
record related to the Draft EIR and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
1.1 AUTHORITY FOR PREPARING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
These responses to comments on the Draft EIR for the Harveston Specific Plan project have been
prepared pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15088 and 15132 of the State of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14, CCR, Section 15000 et seq.). Following
circulation of a Draft EIR, the lead agency is required to.prepare a Final EIR that includes:
• A Draft EIR or a revision of a Draft EIR,
• Comments received on the Draft EIR (either verbatim or summarized),
• A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR,
• Responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the comment process, and
• Any other information added by the lead agency.
Written responses must describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. Per Section
15088(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the
Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must
be addressed in detail, giving specific reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not
accepted."
1.2 FORMAT
This Response to Comments document consists of three (3) sections. In addition to this Introduction
section, the other two sections are Responses to Comment Letters and Errata to the Draft EIR. Section
2.0, Responses to Comment Letters, contains copies of the comment letters received from agencies,
groups, organizations and individuals during the public review period (November 1, 2000 through
December 18, 2000) and the City of Temecula's response to those comments. Letters received on the
Draft EIR are presented in the order they were received by the City. A written response to each letter
immediately follows the letter or comment for which the response has been prepared.
Each comment letter has been assigned a number, and individual issues raised in each letter have been
coded. For example, the letter from City of Murrieta, dated November 6, 2000 is letter #1, and
individual comments contained in the letter have been coded 1 -1, 1 -2, 1 -3, etc.
Section 3 of this document contains the Errata to the Draft EIR, which shows corrections of minor
} errors and requested Draft EIR modifications. When recommendations and questions raised in the
comment letters have necessitated revisions to the Draft EIR text, those changes are indicated in
strikeeet and fijj ht 1 text and edited pages are included in this Response to Comments document
within Section 3.
•
�I P: %198%N162011EP EIRW MNSE M CCMMEMSATCWCU nWC 1 - 1
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.3 LETTERS RECEIVED •�
The following persons, public agencies, and organizations submitted comment letters on the Harveston �I
Specific Plan Draft EIR (November 2000):
1. City of Murrieta. November 6, 2000
2. The Gas Company. November 13, 2000
3. County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency. November 30, 2000
4. Western Riverside Council of Governments. December 4, 2000
5. Rancho Water. December 5, 2000
6. South Coast Air Quality Management District. December 8, 2000
7. Department of Toxic Substances Control. December 11, 2000
8. Lennar Communities. December 15, 2000
9. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. December 18,
2000
- United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. March
31, 1999 - included as an attachment to the above US Fish and Wildlife Service letter
10. Winchester Hills, LLC. December 18, 2000
11. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse. December 19, 2000
12. County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Planning Department.
December 26, 2000
The following persons, public agencies, and organizations submitted comment letters on the Draft �.
Harveston Specific Plan, however, the issues contained in the letters were determined to be CEQA
related. Therefore, they are included in the Final EIR/Response to Comments document:
13. Department of Transportation, District 8, November 15, 1999 M
14. Department of Transportation, District 8. August 27, 2000
This document will become part of the official public record related to the EIR for the Harveston Specific
Plan project. Based on the information contained in the public record, the decision- makers will be
provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental
consequences of the project. The document is not intended to provide justification of the project or an t,
alternative to the project. The document does provide elected and appointed decision - makers, responsible
and trustee agencies, and citizens with information regarding the issues and concerns raised during the
planning process.
i�.
1 - 2
PAIM9 N1620l�En EfRVt MN5E W COMMENISAKOOCUMENf DOC
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
The Draft EIR for the Harveston Specific Plan project was distributed to responsible agencies, interested
groups, organizations, and individuals. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and
comment for a period of forty -five (45) days. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR
established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on November 1, 2000 and expired on December 18,
2000.
it The comment letters, which were submitted to the City by agencies, groups, organizations and individuals
by December 26, 2000, have been assigned numbers for ease of reference and copies are contained in this
section. Although the formal 45 -day public review period ended on December 18, 2000, the City has
i responded to letters received after the close of the 45 -day review period. The responses to the comments
have been correspondingly numbered and are provided in this section. Responses are presented for each
comment that raises a significant environmental issue. A total of fourteen (14) comment letters have been
received to date, and they include two (2) letters on the Specific Plan document. The list of the comment
letters received is provided in Section 1.3 of this document.
Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise significant
environmental issues. For example, many of the comments reflect the concerns of the commentor only as
related to the merits of the proposed project and not to the adequacy of the environmental information and
analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Other comments request additional information. In accordance with
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, a substantive response to such comments is not appropriate
within the context of CEQA and therefore, has not been prepared. Such comments are responded to with
a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all
appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration.
i
2 -1
P.AWON 16A16EP EIRVI MNSE TO COM WS`KTCCC UM .CCC
LETTER # 1
C I T Y OF M U R R I E T A
26442 Beckman Court, Murriem, CA 9 2062 Internet Address' 1R
Telephone: 909 -698 -1040 Fax: 909 - 698 - +009 http iimwricta.caus - -'
f1.
November 6, 2000
Ms. Patty Anders
Community Development Department I� f
,;; ;NOV 0 8 2000
City of Temecula _
43200 Business Park Drive
PO Box 9033 —
Temecula, California 92589 -9033
Subject: Review of the " Harveston" Specific Plan EIR; City of Temecula;
September 2000; Comments on Traffic Report
Dear Ms. Anders:
Our conclusions are based on Appendix B "Traffic Study" by Wilber, Smith and Associates,
dated July 19, 2000 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lennar " Harveston"
project in Temecula.
Some of the more important statements in the report are as follows:
• "....the ( Harveston) project could be developed and cumulative traffic volumes
adequately accommodated without the completion of the Date /Cherry Street
overcrossing or interchange."
• The Date /Cherry Street overcrossing or interchange "....are anticipated to be needed
prior to the year 2010...."
• "....the entire Harveston site is planned to be developed in five phases and completed
by the year 2005."
• The total daily project traffic generation is 41,767.
The report does not include the "level of service" (LOS) calculations so it is not possible to
comment on the reasonableness of the reports LOS analysis at the critical study intersections.
It is very doubtful that a Cherry Street interchange can be completed before the year 2010. The I 1 -2
report therefore strongly infers that there will be intolerable congestion prior to the year 2010.
i�
•i
2 -2
P]1998 %%N1620ASrl I R\RESPoN1r TO C.11111UCD000M[Nf. DOC /�
I�
Without a new interchange, the proposed project will further attribute to extreme peak period 1 -2
traffic congestion. For this reason, the project should be modified to be less damaging [o current I on
)
traffic congestion.
Sincerely,
R. Henry
Traffic Engineer
RHM/sg
cc: Dan Clark, Engineering Manager
File
�I
2 -3
P \I45M.xNI620] \SEK EIRIRESMNSE TO COb4 ..TS \RTCD UMENI'.DOC
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
1. City of Murrieta. November 6, 2000 40 11
Response 1 -1 I t
Level of Service calculations for traffic study intersections are included in the EIR Traffic Study
Technical Appendix. A copy of the Traffic Study Technical Appendix has been forwarded to the City
of Murrieta.
Response 1 -2
The traffic study findings indicate that the Harveston project could be fully developed and cumulative
traffic volumes adequately accommodated without the completion of the Date /Cherry Street overcrossing
or interchange. In the study report it states that it is anticipated that an overcrossing or an interchange
would be needed by 2010. This was intended to be a qualitative statement or an estimate that assumes
continued area growth at current development growth rates. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4a, 4b and 5 in Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation of the EIR (including recommended
roadway and intersection improvements), no significant traffic impacts will result from the proposed
project under the Full Build -Out 2005 Scenario.
The City of Temecula is working closely with Caltrans and the project developer to expedite the
completion of the Project Connection and Project Study Report. Once completed, final design of the
improvement can get underway. In our view, it would be premature to conclude that an overcrossing or
interchange could not be implemented within approximately ten years.
®
2 -4
P:\19.N 162OIIS EIRVtE MNSE TO COMM IN TCOOCUMENT.00C
The LETTER # 2
Gas
Company-
November 13, 2000 Gas Co. Ref. No. 00-439 OM
City of Temecula ,uth.m C:rfomi.
P. 0. Box 9033 c.. C.., y
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 1981L.q..(.G.m
Redr..& CA
Attention: Patty Anders 91374-9720
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Harveston Project 11.RIn
Bar J000,. 3, SC30C30
11
Located at Margarita Road and Winchester Road R.dr..d, ca
917N -0306
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above - referenced project. Please
note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the
r above named roject is
p ) proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided
without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be 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.
You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual
commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon
1� present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The
Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public 2 -1
Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory
agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the
conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in
accordance with revised conditions.
Typical demand use for:
a. Residential (System Area Average /Use Per Meter) Yearly
Single Family 799 therms /year dwelling unit
Multi - Family 4 or less units 482 therms /year dwelling unit
Multi - Family 5 or more units 483 therms /year dwelling unit
� These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by
Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular
home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy.
i; j
NOV1 0 [000
• l`
2 -5
P11""NI621M6EPT EIRIRESPoNSE TO COM1MEM1TS \RTCO UIT17D
b. Commercial
Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a .�
heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of 2 1
materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for
this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the (Cont.)
building has been designed.
We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial /industrial
customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of
energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further 2 -2
information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our
Commercial /Industrial Support Center at 1 -800- GAS -2000. ■
Sincerely,
, I
John DeWitt
Technical Supervisor
1�
is
O i l
2 -6
P.1199RIN1620ASM EIR \R SPoNSE TO CONE. EM RTCOOCOND:M.
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
�• 2. The Gas Company. November 13, 2000
Response 2 -1
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision - makers.
Response 2 -2
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision - makers. Mitigation Measure 13
within Section 5.9 of the Draft EIR requires that the Gas Company be consulted during the building
design phase for further energy conservation measures.
i
1
•
11
2 -7
� P11" WN I EIRWF ME TO COMM N7SWTCOOCU. N.W 0
aF COUNT a OF RIVERSIDE / , — qo ] OTTER# 3
%J oL H,,.
TRANSPORTATION AND 1 r
< LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY r�o
• ` jPO Mransportation Department David E. Barnharr .�
Director of "a ion
November 30, 2000
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033
RE Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Harveston'Specific Plan (SCH if
99041033). ...
Dear Ms..Ubnoske:
Thank you for including the County of Riverside Transportatlon Department in your
review process of the above referenced Specific Plan, ....
Our staff has reviewed the report and has noted the following concerns related to the
County of Riverside's Circulation Element.
1. In the Circulation Plan the proposed designation for Date Street has bean
upgraded to a 134' Urban Arterial. The County Circulation Element designates Date 3 -1
Street as an 88' Secondary Highway. Significant portions• of the route in the County
have been and are being built to this standard.
2. You have also stated in your. report several options being proposed by the City of
Temecula that includes upgrading Date Street into an Urban Arterial link between
Interstate 15 and Winchester Road. This connection has also been studied as a 3 2
possible corridor alignment by the Community and Environmental Transportation
Acceptability Process (CETAP) Advisory Committee, but has recently been
recommended as one of the many alternatives dropped from further consideration in
the Environmental Review stage.
� � I 1111 DEC 0 4 2000 D
4080 Lemon S1=1, 8N Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955 -6740 _
P.O. Box 1090 • Rivcnidc, California 92502 -1090 • FAX (909) 955 -6721
le i
2_g
P %I WK \9N 1420ME" Ent%R PONSE TO COMW.WSVtT000 U11 DOC
1�
�• Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
, Director of Planning
Page 2
November 30, 2000
However, the Date Street connection is still of major concern to the County of Riverside
Transportation Department, especially its ultimate alignment and connection to Murrieta
Hot Springs Road and/or Winchester Road, and how it will affect the proposed Murrieta
Valley Unified School District's proposed middle school site.
As an information item: Murrieta Valley Unified School District plans are being prepared 3 -2
for Middle School #3 on Date Street between Margarita Road and Calle De Fortuna
Road. They have indicated a need to coordinate their design with not only the (Cont,)
Harveston Specific Plan, but also with the City of Murrieta and plans for the widening or
realignment of Date Street. Some of the proposed options for the Date Street alignment
could greatly impact the access to the proposed school design. Please contact Ms.
Charlene R. Stone, Facilities Planner, at the Murrieta Valley Unified School District
(909) 696 -1072 extension 3006 for her input. Attached is the latest draft of the school
site plan.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Respectfully,
Edwin D. Studor
Administrative Manager
EDS:LS:jas
Enclosures
cc: Supervisor Venable
Supervisor Buster
Ken Graff
Dave Stanovich
Charlene R. Stone, MVUSD
�
ar
2-9
� PV449`.XNI6:01 \Stl ORIRESMNSE TO COMMENrSRTCOOCOME ,W O
ro (I) o --
Y
c °
o og 0
;mod
o m��
gsw o
?2Um UG (7
�OQKOa Y W f N
J WZNJ p > W 1
g
j -J 0m
r 0m�Z
NI aw-US6 LLU
of rowzi-'°° �z
O SFO°dO�p OLL 1��U) >� O
� � v
u� a�' uiwj� N F »ss� °z' w`° rs
U( 6ssSa KLLLL >NOJdaa � dR I
J ji +99UU i
o� U, .9E� •� *
o. s.
a
s �i
I i\
•� I
2 -10
PLVVPXN162016En EIRIUSMNSE TO COMM S \RTCD USENT
I HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
- • 3. County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency. November 30, 2000
Response 3 -1
The currently adopted Circulation Plans for both the City of Temecula and City of Murrieta designate
Date Street as a six -lane urban arterial/arterial with a right -of -way width of 110 to 134 feet. These
designations have been in the locally adopted circulation plans for at least six to seven years. Because
these road segments are located within the City of Temecula and the City of Murrieta sphere of influence.
the County should conform development to the City's General Plan. It is recognized that portions of the
route within the County have been improved to a lesser standard. This poses a challenge for the local
jurisdictions to implement the planned long -range local circulation system.
Response 3 -2
It is recognized that the ultimate alignment of Date Street between Margarita and Jefferson Roads has not
been determined. The 2005 project build -out analysis results conclude that this segment of Date would
not be needed to adequately accommodate the cumulative traffic. At the same time we acknowledge that
coordination of this longer range effort as well as the development of the Murrieta Unified School
District's planned Middle School #3 need to be coordinated with City of Temecula and City of Murrieta
staff.
I is
2 -11
P:11 -19� I6 +_0IIEl EIRVtE IE M MMMEMSATCq^ UXEF .00C
I�
LETTER # 4
Western Riverside Council of Governments
W R C O G County of Riverside, City of Banning, City of Beaumont, City of Calimesa, City of Canyon Lake, City of Corona,
City of Hemet. City of Lake Elsinore, City of Moreno Valley, City of Murneta. City of Norco. City of Perns,
City of Riverside, City of San Jacinto, City of Temecula
December 4, 2000
Patty Anders
City of Temecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033
Subject: Harveston Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCAG IGR # 2000533
Dear Ms. Anders:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above - referenced project. The
proposed project is considered to be "regionally significant", and as such, subject to
Intergovernmental Review (IGR). IGR is the review of regionally significant projects for their
consistency with adopted regional plans. Western Riverside Council of Governments ( WRCOG) is
assisting Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in reviewing on their behalf,
regionally significant projects located within the western Riverside County subregion. SCAG staff,
or the Community, Economic and Human Development Committee (CEHD) as appropriate, concurs
in the review comments.
The attached policies are a listing of those policies from the WRCOG Subregional Comprehensive
Plan (SRCP) by which the proposal was reviewed for regional consistency. All policies identified 4 -1
have been determined to be consistent with SCAG's regional plan, the Regional Comprehensive
Plan and Guide (RCPG). Also included are our comments regarding the project's consistency with
these policies.
General Comments
1. The DEIS/EIR neglects to provide an analysis of the consistency of the project with adopted
regional plans as required by CEQA § 15125(d). The Final EIS /EIR should include this
discussion. WRCOG analysis of the consistency of the preferred project with the Western
Riverside Subregional Comprehensive Plan follows this letter. Consistency with the 4 -2
following plans should also be discussed: SCAG Growth Management Plan, AQMP (1997),
Regional Transportation Plan, the RCTC Congestion Management Plan, the appropriate
local Urban Water Management Plan and Water and Sewer Master Plans, and the County
Integrated Waste Management Plan. Where inconsistencies occur, rationale for the
inconsistency should also be discussed in the "Regional Consistency" section of the FEIR.
2. The SCAG Community, Economic, and Human Development Committee (previously the ,
Standing Committee on Implementation) has long been concemed that in housing nch��77 14 -3
DEC 0 7 2000
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 300 • Riverside, CA 92501 • (909) 787.7985 • Fax
2 -12
P \l"MRN16201\SETT EIRIRFSFONSE TO COM1PffRT51RTCOOCONff\T. WC
I • subregions like Western Riverside County housing is likely to be constructed first while
employment producing land uses never materialize. Conversely, in job rich subregions, the
employment producing office buildings, shopping centers, schools or industrial buildings are
built first and the housing components are brought in much later, or not at all. This
Committee strenuously urges that development phasing plans be established to reduce the 4 -3
VMT in the early phases of development rather than leaving such issues until after (Cont.)
substantial build -out of the project has occurred or allowing for the indefinite postponement
of such issues. By addressing these issues at the planning stage, the quality of life is
enhanced through the reduction of commuting times and traffic congestion, the minimization
of air quality impacts, and the development of community identity and association through
the provision of adequate employment, retail, housing and recreational opportunities. The
phasing plan should also indicate infrastructure and service provision to support
development.
3. Although page 11 of the Environmental Checklist (Appendix A) states that population will be
discussed, the DEIR contains no such discussion. Pcpulation, housing, and employment 4 -4
should be discussed in order to determine consistency of the project with SCAG forecasts,
including jobs:housing ratios. The following numbers should be used:
Temecula 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Population 54,300 72,100 89,900 105,600 122,000
Housing 16,800 21,800 26,800 30,700 35,900
t Employment 19,300 23,200 27,000 30,200 34,100
WRCOG 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
.� Population 1,315,300 1,564,900 1,814,100 2,033,900 2,264,000
r Housing 424,600 504,800 585,800 647,800 730,900
Employment 366,700 464,800 563,200 644,900 740,300
Source: SCAG 1997 RTP
If you have any questions regarding these comments, you may contact Steve Ruddick, Director of
Planning or Sandra Paulsen, Staff Analyst, at (909) 787 -7985. WRCOG looks forward to a positive
and productive working relationship with your agency. Please forward a copy of the Final EIR to
WRCOG when it becomes available.
S c ly,
6.�� --
to a Ruddick
Director of Planning
2
2 -13
11199W1N I6'UI11En EIR\RESG NSE TO CGhMEMSRTCC UC NTP
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN, IGR # 12000533
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Specific Plan encompasses 552 acres located in the northern portion of the City of Temecula,
abutting the 1 -15 on the west and the City of Murrieta on the north. It is designed to allow a
maximum of 1,921 dwelling units, 13 acre mixed use overlay, a 12 acre school, 112 acres of
commercial service uses, and 54 acres of parks.
SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO GROWTH
FORECASTS
WRCOG prepares growth projections for
western Riverside County in the areas of
population, housing and employment.
Projections are developed with the
assistance of local jurisdictions, and through
modeling programs such as the Disaggnegate
Residential Allocation Model and the
Employment Allocation Model. SCAG adopts
regional growth projections based on '
subregional figures to be used in modeling
efforts for transportation, air quality, and
other regional programs.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT:
SCAG 3.01
O The EIR should discuss whether the
project's growth projections are Please see General Comment The only
consistent with the population, reference to population/household ld found by
housing and jobs forecasts for the Staff is on 5 which discusses parkland _
to population n ratio. This discussion
Western Riverside County subregion. concludes a project population generation
4 -5
of 5,349 persons. However, SCAG year
2000 projection for the City of Temecula is
3.23 persons /household, or 6,205 project
population. Staff is unable to determine
consistency with this policy.
WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT:
SLAG 3.03
O Ensure that future growth and The DEIR discusses the proposed water for
development is supported by the project. Rancho California Water
adequate infrastructure. District (RCVWD), has indicated the
O Establish stable, reliable and secure availability of water for the project. The 4 -6
water supplies of adequate and infrastructure to serve the project are
3 ,
2 -14
P.0 99R,AN 16`01%SM EIRIRES' NSE TO COMM N7SNTCD UNfENTOCC
�• quality to meet the needs of the constructed or provided for in the RCWD
existing population and projected Master Plan. The project is consistent with 4 ri
growth. these two policies. However there is no -
discussion regarding the applicable Urban Cont.)
Water Management Plan, consistent with
the requirements of CEOA § 15083.5.
O Cooperate and coordinate with local Language on page 5 -166 of the DEIR
responsible wastewater authorities to includes discussion regarding the EMWD
plan and construct new wastewater and the RCWD. It is unclear how the
treatment and collection facilities on project will be served. The discussion is 4
the basis of projected growth confusing, and should be rewritten to clarify
forecasts, which are consistent with who will be the provider and if existing
the protection of public health and facilities or facilities included in current
water quality plans will accommodate the project. Staff
is unable to determine consistency with this
policy.
SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO STANDARD
OF LIVING
The policies addressing Standard of Living
promote the regional strategic goal to
stimulate the economy. The listed goals are
aimed at developing urban environments that
enable individuals to spend less income on
housing, minimize public and private
development costs, and enable firms to be
more competitive.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT:
SCAG 3.03
O Manage growth to ensure the ability The project will impact public services.
to provide the public services and However, with the payment of impact fees,
facilities needed to maintain the the project impacts are less than 4 g
quality of life for current and future significant, consistent with this policy.
residents of Western Riverside
County.
SCAG 3.05
D Attach urban development to existing The project is located within the boundaries
urban centers to establish a balanced of the City of Temecula. Cities are 4 -9
subregional land use patterns which considered to be urban centers, consistent
maintains the quality of life, provides with these 3 policies.
for effective service delivery, and
helps attain other subregional goals
while accommodating a range of
lifestyles.
' 4
2- 15
P. \I94X \gMLEO1lSEPlEI0. \RESPoVSE TO CONNE \TS \RTCIXAUAffNT.000
O Riverside County should reflect a
balanced land use pattern, with •
development and growth of '
urbanization attached to existing
urban centers.
O Promote infill development within
existing urban centers.
ECONOMIC ELEMENT:
SCAG 3.04
O Diversify the job base within the The project will provide permanent
subregion. employment opportunities within the
O Provide an adequate number and establishments constructed on the 112
variety of jobs to meet the acres of commercial service uses. The 4 -10
employment needs of Western proposed jobs will contribute to a better
Riverside County residents. jobs:housing ratio in the City of Temecula
SLAG 3.08 The project is consistent with these
O Provide a range of employment policies.
opportunities to meet the education,
expenence and skill level of residents
in the subregion.
SCAG 3.04
• Provide employment near workers'
places of residence.
• Increase the number and variety of
jobs in the subregion to reduce
commuting to other employment
centers.
• Eliminate negative air quality impacts
and reduce excessive use of the
transportation system.
SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO
QUALITY OF LIFE
Quality of life policies are intended to
enhance and preserve the quality of the
physical and social living environment. The
underlying goals of the policies include
creating urban environments that preserve
open space and natural resources, are
aesthetically pleasing, preserve the character
of the community, and offer a variety of
lifestyles. Issues regarding mobility and
clean air are also included in this category.
MOBILITY ELEMENT:
SCAG 3.16
5
2 -16
%199PIPN 1620 1 ISEFT EWRESPoNSE TO CONMMN SIUCUCCUN..' W
O Reduce congestion within the The proposed project will enhance existing
• subregional transportation system to roads with widening, paving, and bike
enhance access to residential lanes. On -site improvements will provide
communities, urban centers, and for connections from residential areas to 4.11
important services. parks, schools and commercial areas to
reduce vehicle trips. The project is
1 consistent with this policy.
OPEN SPACE and HABITAT
CONSERVATION ELEMENT:
SCAG 3.18
O Balance the development needs of The are no existing species or existing
the subregion with the need to protect habitat on site. The proposed Arroyo Park
and preserve designated species, will restore and create habitat. The project 4 -12
their habitats and significant open is consistent with this policy.
space resources.
SCAG 3.22
O Protect residents and structures from The DEIR, pages 5 -127 through 133
man -made and natural hazards. discusses hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides and liquefaction. This is
mitigated to the extent feasible by using the 4 -13
latest adopted design standards for
construction. Flooding is not considered a
threat. The project is supportive of this
policy.
O Preserve and protect scenic and The arroyo is a visual resources which will
visual resources. be preserved and enhanced by the project. 14-14V
SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO AIR
1 uauTv
' SCAG 5.07
O Implement measures to support the The project proponent will consult with
use of transit and other alternatives to transit providers to determine the location
the single occupancy vehicle, of bus turn outs and stops at the tract map 4 -15
stage. The draft EIR also includes
discussion of bike trails and
SCAG 5.11 interconnections, consistent with this policy.
O Provide for the mitigation of projects' Construction impacts to air quality will be
air quality impacts, consistent with the mitigated consistent with AQMD rules. The
legal requirements of CEQA, long -term air quality impacts will exceed
AQMP thresholds, but are reduced to the 4 -16
extent feasible with mitigation. The project
is consistent with this policy.
6
i
2 -17
P \MV 1.NI6M,111 TO COMM N7S,.RT000CUMENT.00C
SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO •�
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality policies are based on two
underlying goals: to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of ,
the nation's water supply, and to achieve and
maintain water quality objectives necessary
to protect all beneficial uses of all waters. '
SCAG 11.02
O Protect surface and groundwater from
degradation. The project will have little long -term impact
to surface or ground water. Construction
impacts are mitigated through best 4 -17
management practices for erosion control.
The project is consistent with this policy.
HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT:
NOTE: Hazardous Waste Management in
Western Riverside is the sole responsibility of
the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health Services, WRCOG
only focuses on household hazardous
wastes. As such, SCAG HWMC policies are
not applicable.
SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO REGIONAL
MOBILITY
The SRCP Mobility Element goals and
objectives are intended to refine and
implement the goals and policies identified by
SCAG in its Regional Comprehensives Plan
and Guide. SCAG's goals and policies
regarding regional mobility address system
mobility, reducing energy consumption,
promoting transportation friendly
development patterns, fostering economic
development and enhancing the
environment. In addition, SCAG policies
regarding regional mobility relate directly to
regional strategic policies for Quality of Life.
Transportation Demand Management
O Implement TDM measures to reduce TDM and TSM measures are required as I 4 -18
7 '
2 -18
P1199"N162o I% SEP7 EWRESOONSE TO COMMENTS\RTCOOCUMEAT.OIX' '
the number of single occupant vehicle mitigation for the Specific Plan on pages 5- 4 -18
• trips. 86 and 87. The project is consistent with I (Copt.)
O Implement TSM measures to reduce these policies.
the number of single occupancy
vehicle trips.
Streets and Highways /Freeways /HOV
O Encourage the preservation of rights- Rights -of -way have, and will be, acquired to
of -way for future transportation accommodate the project, consistent with 14 -19
facilities. this policy.
O Encourage employers to utilize TDM TDM measures will be incorporated into the
measures identified in the Western commercial uses, consistent with this 4 -20
Riverside County Detailed policy.
Implementation Strategy.
O Maintain acceptable levels -of- services The project will improve level -of- service on
(LOS) on the subregional network. the major arterial segments, consistent with 4 -21
this policy.
Conclusions:
1. The proposed project is consistent with or supports many of the Western Riverside
Subregional Comprehensive Plan policies which are in turn, consistent with SCAG's 4 -22
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, the Regional Transportation Plan, the Air Quality
' Management Plan, and the Congestion Management Program. The Final EIR should
include a section which discusses project consistency with regional plans.
2. Staff is unable to determine consistency with regional growth management policies. This 14 -23
should be discussed, using the figures provided in General Comment #3. Where
inconsistencies exist, the Final EIR should provide rationale for those inconsistencies with
the subregional plan.
3. All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative impacts associated with
future construction should be implemented and monitored as required by CEQA. 14 -24
G: \WFgGR\&ir hary on_sp eni.Npd 8
2 -19
P:�IY4tl�XN ILSI�I \SETT EI0.�0.ESfVNSE TO CONAIEM1'rSNTCOOCOM1ffNr.DOC
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
4. Western Riverside Council of Governments. December 4, 2000
•�
Response 4 -1
The comment does not address a particular environmental issue nor the adequacy of the EIR. 1
Therefore, no response is provided. Comment is acknowledged.
Response 4 -2
The CEQA document for the Harveston Specific Plan project is an EIR and not a joint EIR /EIS as
referred to in this comment.
Additionally, as noted in Comment 4 -1, the proposed project is consistent with the WRCOG
Subregional Comprehensive Plan policies, which are in turn, consistent with SCAG's Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide, the Regional Transportation Plan, the Air Quality Management Plan,
and the Congestion Management Program, and the City concurs with this statement. Potential
inconsistencies are identified by WRCOG in the balance of its letter, and these items are addressed
below as they apply.
Response 4 -3
The Draft EIR for Harveston includes a phasing plan (Section 3.5 and Exhibits 10 and 10a), which ,
adequately provides for a balanced mix of residential and services commercial uses throughout the
construction life of the Harveston Specific Plan. The phasing plan also includes phased development of
infrastructure and services to support development.
Response 4 -4
The Environmental Checklist (Initial Study, page 11) discusses the growth inducing impacts of the
proposed Harveston project. and states that the EIR would discuss the significance of this "growth
inducing" issue. Per the Initial Study, the EIR does include a discussion of growth inducing impacts of
the project in Section 7.0, Long -Term Implication of the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR.
The project is proposing residential units and service commercial at levels consistent with the City of
Temecula General Plan EIR, and in essence the proposed Harveston Specific Plan project is
implementing the land uses contained in the adopted City General Plan. The Harveston project is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and population, housing and employment analysis
provided in the General Plan EIR, and therefore, incorporation of the population, housing and
employment analysis within the Harveston DEIR is not warranted.
Response 4 -5
Please refer to Response 4-4, above. Additionally, regarding population generation for the project, the
Draft EIR has utilized the population generation factor in the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. The total
population generation of 5,349 persons included in the Draft EIR is less than and does not exceed the
6,205 persons forecasted by SCAG for the project. Therefore, the future population generated by the
project is still within the SCAG projection.
2-20
P]I""N 1620 1 6EPr E1RN MN5E TO COM, EWSWTCD UMENi.DCC
}
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
• Response 4 -6
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policies. Regarding the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the UWMP is based on
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) Master Plan, and the RCWD Master Plan is based on the
City's General Plan. Therefore, the UWMP is consistent with the General Plan, and hence the
requirements of CEQA.
Response 4 -7
The comment is acknowledged. The project site will be served by the Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD). The text is revised to reflect the comment (refer to page 5 -166, Errata to the •Draft EIR).
This modification does not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues
that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Response 4 -8
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policy.
Response 4 -9
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policies.
Response 4 -10
' The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policies.
Response 4 -11
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policy.
' Response 4 -12
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policy.
Response 4 -13
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
and support of the applicable policy.
Response 4.14
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
1 applicable policy.
2 -21
P1I"WN 16?EMM EIRW SMNSE TO COMMEMSNTCCCCUMENT.00C
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
•,
Response 4 -15
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policy.
Response 4 -16 ,
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policy.
Response 4 -17
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policy.
Response 4 -18 1
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policies.
Response 4 -19
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with ,
applicable policy.
Response 4 -20
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with ,
applicable policy.
Response 4 -21
The comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary since the comment indicates consistency with
applicable policy.
Response 4 -22
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision- makers.
Response 4 -23
Please refer to Responses 4-4 and 4 -5 above, regarding inconsistency with the regional growth
management policies.
Response 4 -24
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision - makers.
2 -22
BV"WN 1620 MEn EIRW MNSE TO COMA WM TCOOCUME. L, O
LETTER # 5
December 5, 2000
brim Debbie Ubnoske, Manager
Department of Planning
City of Temecula
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033
oaaw. es wn SUBJECT: HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
PmsG:n:
5.. V� Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
aa4° XD y
[i.auxarman Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the subject project and RCWD offers the following continents:
I Scou ASWnV�o -
'°" I . As shown on Page 5 -166 within Section 5.9 "Public Services and Utilities
(Sewer)," it is RCWD's understanding that wastewater flows generated by
.rw„n. rr.eww the subject project will be treated by Eastern Municipal Water District at 5 -1
their Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. No RCWD
°° L P. facilities will be used for wastewater conveyance or treatment.
D u.
oar Eaa, 2. Table 29 on Page 5 -167 within Section 5.9 "Public Services and Utilities
llanneN G Daly
(Water)" does not indicate the estimated domestic water demand! for the 5 -2
�,roNenaa, community park.
cuR a� 3. On Exhibit 41 (Proposed Water Plan) on Page 5 -173 within Section 5.9
"Public Services and Utilities (Water)," please indicate that the existing 5 -3
s..,... °`° 24 -inch waterline within Date Street is a 1380 Pressure Zone facility.
' C wwal Gvort
4. Within Section 5.9 "Public Services and Utilities," lease
p provide a
separate discussion for recycled water (separate from potable water) and
discuss any proposed or alternative pla:.s to use recycled water within the
subject project. This discussion should also include existing state law
concerning the use of recycled water and any constraints to using recycled 5 -4
water (i.e., Senate Bill No. 2095, Regional Water Quality Board Basin
Plan Requirements, or RCWD service area limitations). Please provide an
exhibit showing the proposed recycled water distribution system, proposed
areas of application, and RC WD's existing recycled water facilities.
The following sentence from Page 5 -166 within Section 5.9 "Public
F By,---- Services and Utilities (Water)" is not correct.
EC U '- =` l d "Additionally, in drought conditions, water has never been denied to a
lake with a live aquatic ecosystem system such as the proposed lake
within the Specific Plan area Therefore, the lake would not be
' impacted during drought condition and would keep its viability. "
40155 WN.8aur Rmd Rm Offieo Ba B%'! i via cWJmwe 4S5�90y] Hfbl'�6 ®00•N1][4909)P829G0
2 -23
' P]IYVA1PN 12301 \SE,E,R.WNSE TO COPNIEMSRTCDOCUMENT.COC
1
Enclosed for your information is RCWD's Water Conservation Program as set forth in •
Resolution No. 91 -5 -5. NYithin Section 3 (Stage R — Water Alert) of said ordinance, 5-4
please note that decorative ponds are not to be filled or replenished and that fountain
pumps are to remain off to minimize evaporation.
If you should have any questions er need additional information, please call either Andrew '
Webster or Steve Brannon.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
E. P. "Bob" Lemons, P.E.
Director of Engineering 1
00 a0581FCF
c: Steve Brannon, Development Engineering Manger
Andrew Webster, Planting & Capital Projects Manager
A
® r
2 -24
P.ATY8%8N16E0I15EP1' EIRUUSf NSE TO C01Fff S \RTCOOCUNE17D ,
HARVESTON
' FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
• 5. Rancho Water. December 5, 2000
Response 5 -1
The comment is acknowledged. The text is revised to reflect the comment (refer to page 5 -166. Errata
to the Draft EIR). This modification does not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise
any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Response 5 -2
The comment is acknowledged. Table 29 in Section 5.9 is revised to include the estimated water
demands for the community park (refer to page 5 -167, Errata to the Draft EIR). This modification does
not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed
in the Draft EIR.
Response 5 -3
The comment is acknowledged. The text is revised to reflect the comment (refer to page 5 -173, Errata
to the Draft EIR). This modification does not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise
any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Response 5 -4
Page 5 -166 "Water" of Section 5.9 of the Draft EIR does include a discussion on recycled water.
Recycled water will be used for replenishing the lake after the initial filling of the lake with potable
water. The reason for filling the lake with potable water is to minimize the initial nutrient loading to the
lake. The use of recycled water for replenishing would have less effect on the aquatic ecosystem, but
maintenance costs would be slightly higher. During the drought conditions, the developer has agreed to
use recycled water for replenishment and to delay the filling with potable water. In essence, the RCWD
Resolution No. 91 -5 -8, Section 3 (Stage II - Water Alert) does not cover live aquatic ecosystems such as
the proposed Harveston Lake and does not use the word replenish (only filled). Use of recycled water
for replenishment would be in compliance with the Resolution. Exhibit 41, Proposed Water Plan has
been revised to show the proposed recycled water distribution system (refer to Exhibit 41, Errata to the
Draft EIR).
Regarding the sentence "Additionally, in drought conditions.... " according to J. Harlan Glenn Engineers
(lake engineers), who have been involved in many California lakes project over the last thirty years,
water has never been denied to an existing lake with a live aquatic ecosystem such as the proposed lake
for Harveston Specific Plan. The sentence has been clarified (refer to page 5 -166, Errata to the Draft
EIR). This modification does not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant
issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR.
1
2 -25
' P \19308N 16 '%EP EM2W NSE TO COMMENT' TCCCCUMENL
LETTER # 6
South Coast
�f II DCC 0 8 2000 '_ I
Air Quality Management District J
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 3 =
� 909 396 -2000 • htt
p: / /www.agmd.gov
FAXED: DECEMBER 8. 2000 December 8, 2000 '
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed 552 Acre Harveston Specific
Plan — City of Temecula
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity
to comment on the above - mentioned document. The following comments are meant as
guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final Environmental
Impact Report. t
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, please provide the AQMD with
written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final
Environmental Impact Report. The AQMD would be happy to work with the Lead
Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact
Gordon Mize, Transportation Specialist — CEQA Section, at (909) 396 -3302, if you have
any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Steve Smith, Ph.D.
Program Supervisor, CEQA Section
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
Attachment
SS:GM
RVC001102 -01 ,
.Control Number
r
2 -26
P:1199"NI62n1 \SEn EM0. SMNSE TO C0M11EW6WTCW UO NTD
�• Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, 1- December 8, 2000
Director of Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed 552 -Acre Harveston Specific
Plan — City of Temecula
1. Although the Draft EIR briefly mentions consistency with the Air Quality Element of
the General Plan (page 5 -22), there is no discussion of consistency with the Air 6 -1
Quality Management Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d), a lead agency
shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general
plans and regional plans. Please provide this assessment in the Final EIR.
2. In Table 9 on page 5 -78 of the DEIR, two intersections (Winchester Rd at Ynez Rd
and Murrieta Hot Springs at Margarita Rd) affected by the proposed project will
' experience deterioration in Level of Service (LOS). It is therefore recommended that 6.2
any intersection rated C or worse that experiences a LOS deterioration of one full
level or more or intersections rated D or worse that experience a LOS deterioration of
two percent or greater, undergo a CO hotspots analysis. Please refer to the
SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Chapters 5 and 9 for guidance for
evaluating CO hotspots.
2-27
P 11 91111N 16ID1'IE- EIRIREI -NNE TO COM10.�MSUtTCD000b1ENLLOC
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
6. South Coast Air Quality Management District. December 8, 2000 •�
Response 6 -1 ,
The proposed project is consistent with the South Coast Air Basin Air Quality Management Plan as ,
follows:
a. The proposed project will implement any relevant transportation control measures
recommended in the air quality element of the City of Temecula General Plan based upon
guidance developed by the Western Riverside Council of Governments, and
b. The project is consistent with the growth projections of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan.
The growth projections for the Western Riverside County region, versus those within the
Specific Plan area, are as follows:
J obs Housing
Proposed project + 3,786* + 1,921 D.U.
Western Riverside County ** +191,000 + 197,000 D.U.
Project Share 2.0% 1.0%
* 40 jobs /ac x 92.65 net acres service commercial = 3,706 ,
4 jobs/TSF x 20 TSF neighborhood shopping = 80
TOTAL JOBS = 3,786
** SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan
Because the project area is housing rich and job poor (the jobs -to- housing (J/H) forecast is 0.82 for
western Riverside County in 2010), the 2.00 J/H ratio for this project is air quality positive and '
consistent with the AQMP.
Response 6 -2
Per the commentor's request, the following text has been incorporated into Section 5.4, Air Quality of
the EIR (refer to page 5 -99, Errata to the Draft EIR).
A screening level microscale air quality "hot spot" analysis was conducted for the two referenced
intersections. This analysis incorporates worst -case atmospheric dispersion conditions and maximum
traffic to predict CO concentrations in very close proximity to the roadway edge. The peak one -hour
concentrations area predicted as follows:
Winchester / Ynez 6 ppm
Murrieta Hot Springs / Margarita 6 ppm
Source: Caltrans Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes, 1988.
Existing peak hour background CO levels are 5.0 ppm. It would require a local contribution of 15 ppm '
to equal the California one -hour CO standard. The maximum theoretical combined background (5 ppm)
plus local (6 ppm) concentration is 11 ppm. Based upon the results of this analysis, there will be no CO ,
"hot spot" within the project vicinity.
This modification does not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues •
that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. ,
2 -28
%I MNI6M]O En EIRV MNSE M COMMEMSATCW[UWM LU'C
LETTER # 7
Department of Toxic Substances Control
• Edwin F. Lowry, Director v � J
5796 Corporate Avenue
Winston H. Hickox Cypress, California 90630
Gray Davis
Agency Secretary Governor
California Environmental
Protection Agency
`JTcc
' December 11, 2000 1 7 2000
By—
' Ms. Patty Anders
City of Temecula
' 43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589 -9033
r DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC
PLAN (SCH #2000111014)
' Dear Ms. Anders:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Notice of
Completion (NOC) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above -
mentioned Project.
Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows:
1) The draft EIR needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at 17 -1
the Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wasteslsubstances at
the Project area.
2) The draft EIR needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within
' the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the draft EIR needs to 7-2
evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
i 3) The draft EIR indicates that an environmental assessment shall be conducted to
determine environmental impacts resulting from each Tract, Plot Plan, or any
other discretionary permit required to implement the Specific Plan. The draft EIR 7 -3
should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and /or
remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which government
agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight.
1 ® Printed on Recycled Paper
2 -29
' P.119WIMRIIIPSEFf EINIHES -NSE M comwws'RX OCUMENT
Ms. Patty Anders
December 11, 2000
Page 2.
4) The draft EIR shows that the French Valley Airport is located directly east of the
project boundary across Winchester Road. Identify whether any threats of 7 -4
hazardous substances release currently exists from the French Valley Airport or
any adjacent properties.
5) The draft EIR indicates that 12 acres will be set aside for an elementary school ,
site. It also indicates that the proposal for the elementary school has undergone
a separate CEQA process, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District ,
( TVUSD) has completed an Initial Study for the proposal. During the proposed
school property acquisition and /or construction utilizing state funding, it should
be in compliance with the Assembly Bill 387 (Wildman) and Senate Bill 162
(Escutia) which requires a comprehensive environmental review process and
that DTSC's approval is required. DTSC's role in the assessment, investigation, 7 -5
and cleanup of proposed school sites is to ensure that the selected properties
are free of contamination, and if the property is contaminated, that it is cleaned 1
up to a level that is protective of the students and faculty who will occupy the
new school. A study of the site is to be conducted to provide basic information
for determining if there has been a release, or if there is a threatened release of
a hazardous material including agricultural chemicals or if there may be a
naturally occurring hazardous material present at the site, that may pose a risk to
human health or the environment.
6) Please inform TVUSD of the above requirements. The Draft EIR shows that
based on the Initial Study for the TVUSD, it was concluded that the proposed
elementary school will not have a significant impact on the environment. DTSC's 7 -6
major concern is that whether current or past waste management practices have
resulted in the release or threatened release of hazardous substances which
pose a threat to public health or the environment at the school property.
7) DTSC recommends that the above - referenced study be conducted before the
development of the other areas so that if the designated area is not suitable for a
school, you may change the plan accordingly in the beginning. Therefore, DTSC 7 -7
advises the developer to notify the TVUSD if TVUSD is willing to do the study.
8) If during construction /development of the project, soil contamination is '
suspected, construction in the area should stop and appropriate Health and
Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated 7 -8
soil exists, the EIR should identify how any required investigation and /or
remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide
appropriate regulatory oversight.
t,
2 -30
PAINMN162U16E" EWQE 111E 10 COMMEMSRTCD UMEMD
,• Ms. Patty Anders
December 11, 2000
Page 3
DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA)
preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For
additional information on the VCP or to meet/discuss this matter further, please contact 7 -9
' Mr. Johnson P. Abraham, Project Manager at (714) 484 -5476 or me at (714) 484 -5463.
Sincerely,
Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E.
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch
Cypress Office
cc: Governors Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812 -3044
' Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812 -0806
1
2 -31
' P.1111118M6dn.15EITE10.VlE'P ' w TO COM EMNtTCW UMEN7
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
7. Department of Toxic Substances Control, December 11, 2000
Response 7 -1
As the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) discloses on page 5 -3, the proposed project consists of vacant '
land once used for cattle and sheep grazing. Historically or currently no uses associated with the release
of hazardous wastes /substances have been identified on the site. Please refer to pages 8 -9 of the Initial
Study in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. '
Response 7 -2
The proposed project at the Initial Study stage identified no known or potentially contaminated site and ,
conditions at the proposed project site that would pose a threat to human health or the environment.
Please refer to page 9 of the Initial Study dated April 1, 1999 contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. '
The project site was not identified on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project site was
conducted in March 1995, which concluded that no impacts related to hazardous materials (i.e., asbestos)
would occur and the site was not within 1.5 -mile radius of a site containing such materials. Based upon '
the rationale provided in the Initial Study, the EIR document does not include a separate section on
analysis of hazardous materials on the site.
Response 7 -3
Per the January 3, 2001 conversation with the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Draft EIR
does not include a reference to a future environmental assessment requirement.
Response 7 -4 '
As stated on page 5 -105 of the DEIR, the French Valley Airport is located approximately 2.0 miles north
of the project site. Regarding threats of hazardous substances release, the French Valley Airport has been
consulted during the preparation of the Draft EIR. There will be no adverse impact to the project site.
Currently, there are no such threats to the project site identified from the French Valley Airport or any
adjacent properties. ,
Response 7 -5
As disclosed and referenced in the EIR document on page 3 -9, the proposed school site has undergone a
separate CEQA process, with the Temecula Valley Unified School district acting as the Lead Agency.
The Negative Declaration for the school site was approved on December 7, 1999. The State Department
of Education reviewed the proposal and gave clearance (site approval) in a letter, dated January 10, 2000 ,
to the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The proposed elementary school is currently under
construction.
Response 7 -6 '
Please refer to Response 7 -5, above regarding the proposed school site and the CEQA process. ,
�1
2 -32
P:\I9 WN16,01\EP EIRW MNSENC MMENISIRTCWCUM WW
' HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
• Response 7 -7 "
Please refer to Response 7 -5, above regarding the proposed school site and the CEQA process.
Response 7 -8
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision - makers.
Response 7 -9
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision- makers.
2 -33
PV9MN1620MM EIRU SNN5E TO COMMENTSATCWCIIMENT.P^C
LETTER # 8 ,
i
December 15, 2000 ,
FACSMiLE & HA DELIVER
City of Temecula
Community Development Department '
Atts Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033 '
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 ,
Re: Comments on Alternatives Discussed in the Harveston Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact
Report ( "DEIR "), State Clearing House No. 99041033
Dear Ms. Ubnoske: ,
This provides comments of I gun Communities with tespect to the subject DEAL
Section 6.0, "Alternatives to the Proposed Project' and specifically. Section 62.1, "Alternative Business ,
Plan Land Use" don not, in ale opinion, meet the criteria for an "Alternative' as that term is used
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA'. There are four threshold testa for
suitable Alternatives provided by CEQA. Alternatives that do not meet all four criteria may not be ®�
considered as Alternatives for purposes of CEQA.
The criteria for an "Alternative" as the term is used by CEQA is that the Alternative must be (1) feeble,
(2) obtain or satisfy most basic Project objectives, (3) significantly reduce environmental impacts, and (4)
are reasonable. See Public Resource Code §21002; 14 Cal Code Regulations 15126.6(a)-(b).
8 - 1
The "Business Park Land Use Alternative" (DER Section 6.2.1) fails to meet three of the four criteria
mentioned above. First, contrary to the statement m the ELR page 6.4, it is not a " feasble alternative" as
the term "feasible" is used for purpose of CEQA.
The property in question is subject to a Community Facility DiMct, CFD 98412, which hag financed over
$12 mullion in capital facilities such as streets, sewers, drainage facilities, em. in advance of any Specific
Plan benefiting the City of Temecula development.
Alternative 6.21 is contrary to the Rate and Method of Apportionment and lard uses (Le. service
commercial) assumed as part of the formation of CFD No. 98-2. In effect, the debt carried by this area of
the project impose such a tremendous border on the Winchester LLC ownership that it may preclude the
viability of development m this area for the suggested Alternative.
Nor does the "Busmeas Park Alternative" significantly reduce environmental impacts. The EHL concedes
that there ate no significant environmental effects arising from land use incompatibilities between the
15744961 (Wad) ,
6529 Rlveeslde Avenue. Suite 133, RNeulde. ColitOrria 92506 — (909) 774-0789. Fat (909) 774-0790
2 -34
P \19991KN I6301 \SEPI'EIRN SMNSE TO COWNEWS \RTCOOCOMENT OOC
,• Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
' December 15, 2000
Page 2
' service commercial portion of the Specific Plan and the existing adjacent business park(light industrial
Uses. Therefore no finding can be made that this significantly reduces environmental impacts, Further,
' the reduction of transportation impacts projected to arise with this Alternative is nominal at best The
Business Part Alternative does not reduce the significant traffic impacts under the City Buildout scenario
to less than significant levels.
' One of the basic Pmject objectives of the Harvest project is to provide tax base to the City of Temcc lL
The substitution of the Business Park Alternative would effectively preclude this goal and tesresd,
substitute office for a significant portion of the non - residential atess of the Specific Plan, providing sales 8 -1
tax revenue. (Cont.)
The Business Park Alternative is not "tmmrasonable," but as a practical matter it appears to have even little
pletmmg value. Acceptable planning practice dictates that the use of land for fieeway fiwtage at a major
arsenal mterehange be commercial, rather than business park. Cl early, vittbtlity in this location aids the
Property's use as commercial as opposed to business park where the visibility is of little value. .
The DEiR makes the argument that including a Business Park Alternative will provide abetter transition
between the service commercial within the Specific Plan Ares... and the existing adjacent business
' parkUgbt Industrial uses." It is to be noted however, that service commetciallbusineas park interfue
still exists undo the Alternative offered. Clearly, any land use interface issues should be addressed
through site plamtiag considerations. The lack of land use and compatibilities between these two areas is
noted in the MR, thus undercuttin the very argument that is made in favor of this Alteautive, we
therefore request that the City of Temecula delete for the reasons stated, Section 61.1 of the DEAR, the
'Business Park Ind Use Alternative," as an Alternative under consideration by the City in conjtatction
with its review of this project
' Very truly yours.
LEN;e. S
' By.
Becks t, Community Development
cn California Land Division
CKB/cic
ec: Mr. Stephen A. Bieri
Craig K. Beam, Esq.
Bull Storm
Bob Santos
1374496.1 (Wad)
2 -35
' P: \IY46�bNl6IIl IGE- EMI-I -NIET0 CO30111f RICO UNTNTC
HARVESTON t
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
8. Lennar Communities. December 15, 2000 ®,
Response 8 -1
The Business Park alternative is feasible and reasonable. It will also result in a reduction of daily ,
vehicle trips and would provide for additional land use compatibility with the adjacent industrial uses.
Furthermore, the property was assessed as non - residential (as opposed to Service Commercial or
Business Park) uses by Community Facilities District No. 98 -2.
However, some minor clarifications have been made to the Draft EIR regarding this alternative (please
refer to page 6 -2, Errata to the Draft EIR). This modification does not alter the conclusions of the Draft
EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR.
2 -36
WRWVOLIWR0IFlIF1WWN 16201\EP EIRV MN5E TO COmMEN TCC UMENi.00C ,
LETTER # 9
'• ,�" "` ` United States Department of the Interior -��
' Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
' Carlsbad, California 92008
' Patty Anders DEC 1 8 2000
City of Temecula
PO Box 9033
' Temecula, California 92589 -9033
Re: Continents on a Draft Environmental Impact Report dated November, 2000, for the proposed
Winchester Hills Specific Plan ( Harveston Specific Plan; SCH #99041033) in the City of
Temecula, Riverside County, California.
Dear Ms. Anders:
' We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding the proposed Harveston
Specific Plan in western Riverside County, California. The proposed Harveston Specific Plan has the
' potential to impact listed or sensitive species. Due to urban encroachment and fragmentation of natural
habitat, many species are declining at a rapid rate throughout southern California. We offer the
following comments and recommendations on biological impacts to this site based on our knowledge
of sensitive and declining species and habitat types in Riverside County.
The project site occupies 552 acres and is located immediately east of Interstate 15, north of Santa
Gertrudis Creek and west of Margarita Road. The proposed project includes a "maximum" of 1,921
' dwelling units on 306.2 acres, 112.4 acres of commercial zoning, 53.7 acres of park land, a 12 -acre
elementary school, and 13 acres for a mixed use district called the "Village Center." The proposed
project, as designed, would directly impact 15 acres of coastal sage scrub, approximately 534 acres that
are inconclusively described as non -native grasses, and approximately 2.89 acres (9,700 linear feet) of
sandy, ephemeral tributaries.
We are responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
' 1973, as amended, including listing and recovery of endangered species, 10(a) permit issuance and
consultation with Federal agencies for actions which may affect Federally listed endangered species.
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g. harm, harassment, pursue, injure, kill) of Federally listed
fish and wildlife species. "Harm" is further defined as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife.
Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or
injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns including breeding, feeding or
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). "Take" can only be permitted pursuant to the pertinent language and
provisions in section 7, 4(d), and 10(a).
' RECEIVED
DEC 2 12000
- 'UAW, INC., IRVINE, CP
2 -37
' P�I'nYeA I"' I IS11 E1Rl 1E 11E 10 COIIWWS\R*C UMEMOOC
Patty Anders 2 ®,
Our concerns regarding the proposed project are potential impacts to federally listed species and other
sensitive biological resources, avoidance of waters of the United States, and a lack of appropriate
mitigation and avoidance to offset project - related impacts. The site is located in an area where
endangered and sensitive species are known to occur. The DEIR does not address this issue 9 -1
adequately. Federally listed species that the project could impact include the threatened coastal '
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, "gnatcatcher "), the endangered Quino
checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino, "Quin"), the Riverside fairy shrimp (Streprocephalus
woottoni), and Munz's onion (Allium munzit). '
We are concerned that the loss of 15 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) would impact habitat for the
gnatcatcher. According to the DEIR, gnatcatchers were not detected during the habitat assessment and ,
general biological surveys conducted onsite. However, this level of survey is not detailed enough to 9-2
detect gnatcatchers. Therefore, we recommend that a focused protocol survey for the gnatcatcher be
conducted prior to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) because suitable gnatcatcher habitat
occurs onsite. If gnatcatchers are found onsite, take authorization would likely be required from the ,
Service prior to development.
According to the DEIR, a protocol survey for Quino was conducted in 1999, that concluded that there
were no Quino on the parcel. However, dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta), a larval host species for
Quino, was observed on the site in February 1999. We, therefore, recommend that an updated Quino 9 -3
focused protocol survey be conducted during the survey season prior to any ground disturbing
activities. Detailed survey maps should be provided.
The use of the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database should not be
considered adequate as a survey for sensitive species. Although this database identifies many areas of 9 -4
known occurrences for sensitive species, it does not necessarily indicate the absence of those species in
areas where surveys have never been consulted or data has not been reported. We are particularly
interested in the potential occurrence of the Riverside fairy shrimp on this site. Per our 19 -5 '
recommendation in our response to the Pre - construction Notice (PCN) to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) on March 31, 1999 (see attached), vernal pools, habitat occupied by the fairy 19 -6
shrimp, have been known to occur in the area A protocol survey to determine if vernal pools exist on
the site should be undertaken prior to the FEIR. Additionally, Munz's onion is also knot n to occur on
nearby sites. Due to the occurrence of clay soils on the site, it is possible that Munz's onion might be 9 -7
present. In order to determine if Munz's onion occurs on the project site, a survey should be conducted
during its flowering season of April through May, by an experienced botanist. '
Additional sensitive species that could occur onsite should also be surveyed for prior to the FEIR.
'These species include the following State species of special concern": burrowing owl (Athene 9 -8
cunicularia), Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris bervinasus), and San Diego
black - tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii).
2 -38
PA OgBUN 16211 ME" EIRURESPONSE TO COMNEN7SRTCOOCIIDIEN7DOC ,
' Patty Anders 3
• The following are additional concerns that should be addressed in the FEIR:
1 1. The proposed project poses significant impacts on raptors that use these types of undeveloped
areas within this region for foraging habitat. Some of the raptors that may be significantly
affected by the project could include the: red - tailed hawk (Bueto jamaicensis), ferruginous
hawk (Buteo regalis), white - tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus),
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperir), sharp - shinned hawk (Accipiter sprattus), golden eagle
' (Aquila chrysaetos), merlin (Falco columbarius), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and
prairie falcon (Falco mexiconus). The continued loss and isolation of foraging areas for raptors 9 -9
should also be considered cumulatively significant under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) of 1970. We disagree with the DEIR's comments that "foraging habitat for raptor
' species is not regionally unique, [and] the loss of this resource would not be considered a
significant impact." As stated in the DEIR, '.the primary biological resource on this parcel is
foraging habitat for raptor species." We recommend that cumulative impacts to raptors
' eventually be addressed through participation and implementation of the Regional Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). In the interim, however, we recommend the
project proponents mitigate offsite and preserve or restore habitat at a 1:1 ratio for the loss of
' open, ruderal, and vacant land and coastal sage scrub foraging habitat used by the raptors. , The
acquisition of mitigation land should be contiguous with other appropriate habitat types and
provide foraging and perhaps nesting habitat for raptors and other sensitive species.
' 2. Due to the loss of 90 percent of coastal sage scrub in southern California and the reliance of the
gnatcatcher on CSS for habitat, we consider that the loss of 15 acres of CSS onite will be 9 -10
cumulatively significant. We recommend that the project proponents mitigate offsite and
'• preserve or restore habitat at a ratio of 3 acres conserved CSS for each acre impacted.
3. The proposed project should address consistency with the on -going planning effort for the
western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Within the MSHCP's proposed
Alternative 1, the areas along Warm Springs Creek to the north of the proposed site and along
Gertrudis Creek, in the southern portion of the site, are being considered as potential
' "constrained [habitat] linkages" to Murrieta Hot Springs and the Santa Rosa Plateau. These
linkages will require adequate buffering and may necessitate potential redesign of the project. 9 -11
Redesign may involve providing for an adequate setback from the linkage site, designating
increased open space areas for buffering along these linkages, possibly connecting the site's
' coastal sage scrub community to the linkage zone, and potential drainage diversions so as to
reduce the hydrological impacts of the project on Warm Springs Creek, Gertrudis Creek and
Murrieta Creek. These actions should be considered prior to the FEIR.
4. The majority of the drainages within the project site are proposed to be filled or culverted
resulting in a significant loss to waters of the United States. We are concerned about the
' cumulative effects associated with continued loss, degradation, and channelization of tributary
waters and wetlands of Murrieta Creek, and associated adverse effects on Santa Gertrudis 9 -12
Creek and Warm Springs Creek. As urban development continues to grow in the area,
cumulative impacts contribute to the overall degradation of the stream and habitat support
2 -39
P1E/4x`E81611,.EP EM SMNSE TO COM1L NTSRT000CUMEMM
Patty Anders 4
functions within Murrieta Creek, Warm Springs Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek. These '
issues, particularly cumulative effects downstream, were not adequately addressed nor
mitigated for in the DEIR. Further measures to reduce pollution load, discharge and erosion
should be addressed and adequate mitigation measures included in the FEIR. In addition, we 9 -12
are concerned about the portion of the northern channel proposed for the creation of an on site (Coot }
riparian habitat that will also double as a detention basin for a portion of the site's runoff. As
addressed in our response to the PCN letter, deterinination of the riparian site's hydrology and ,
soils needs to be addressed to determine if this site can adequately support riparian vegetation.
Furthermore, we do not believe that adequate mitigation measures, such as establishing buffer
zones between the riparian area and the surrounding houses, road and commercial space, were
applied towards reducing the pollution load that could potentially enter into the riparian site. ,
We recommend that the applicant submit a mitigation and monitoring plan that addresses these
issues to the Corps and us for review and approval prior to certification of the FEIR.
5. A quantitative and qualitative description of the vegetation communities and habitat types that ,
occur throughout the proposed development site, including the area directly adjacent to
Interstate 15, as well as the tributaries, should be included in the FEIR. These descriptions ,
should include any vegetation that provides roosting sites for raptors or other bird species,
locations of identified dwarf plantain, and overall species identification and distribution. In 9 -13
addition, a vegetation description of the parcels adjacent to and nearby the north -west portion
of the site should be included. A more detailed vegetation map than what is provided in the ,
DEIR should be included in the FEIR.
6. Discrepancies in vegetation types within the DEIR should be rectified in order to eliminate ®,
confusion and misunderstanding in the FEIR. Incongruities can be found, for instance, on p. 5-
134 in the DEIR that states that the site's "existing vegetation is predominantly native grasses."
Further on, however, the DEIR states that the "two vegetation types ... identified" on the site 9 -14
"were non -native grasslands and coastal sage scrub" (p.5 -149) and "implementation of the
proposed project would not remove or alter any significant natural or native vegetation ...
because they do not currently exist on site" (p.5 -155).
7. A clarification of any inconsistencies with numbers in the DEIR should be included in the 1
FEIR. For example, while the description of the project's size totals 552 acres, adding together
the specified land use allocations (i.e. dwelling units, commercial space, park land, elementary 9 -15
school, village center) reveals 54.7 acres that are not taken into account. While an approximate
tally of the total site acreage does exist in the Technical Appendices, it should be clearly stated
within the FEIR. Furthermore, descriptions of project size are frequently stated as
"approximately 500 acres" (ie. p.I Quinn focused survey, DEIR p.5 -151) and need to be
rectified to be consistent with the 552 acres.
8. Alternative 6.3.3 is the only alternative offered, other then alternative 6.5.1 "No Project/No '
Development," that improves the allocation of biological resources as compared to the
proposed plan. We do not agree, however, that alternative 6.3.3 nor the proposed project 9 -16
provides alternatives toward addressing impacts and mitigation on biological resources. '
2 -40
PA1"K SN 16301 \SM EJRIR SMNSE TO COMN EWSW TCCOCUNEM.000
'• Patty Anders 5
Additional reasonable alternatives should be proposed that address viable alternatives for
biological resources.
In summary, we recommend that adequate measures be addressed to avoid, minimize, or properly
' mitigate short and long -term impacts to biological resources on the proposed project site. We disagree
with the assessment in the DEIR that development of this site would not "contribute incrementally at
any level of biological significance to general losses of natural habitat within the local area [or would
' not] generate ... direct significant adverse impacts to natural wildlife habitats on a local or regional q_17
scale." We recommend that updated and additional surveys be conducted to include listed or other
sensitive species, that impacts to biological resources are adequately addressed within the FEIR, that
cumulative impacts are examined and addressed, that redesign of the project occurs to complement the
Riverside County MSHCP planning effort, that the issues in the attached letter responding to the PCN
be addressed, and that onsite and pffsite mitigation be implemented.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. If you have any questions please contact
Dahlia Boyarsky of my staff at (760) 431 -9440.
Sinc rely,
Jim A. Bartel
Assistant Field Supervisor
1 -6- 2001 -CEQA- 1120.1
cc: Jayna Morgan (Eda%v, Irvine)
Spencer D. MacNeil (Corps, Los Angeles)
David P. Zappe (Riverside Cowry Flood Control and Water Conservation District)
Nancy Woo (EPA, San Francisco)
. Warren Back (Eastern Municipal Water District, Perris)
Glenn Black (CDFG, Chino)
1
1
2 -41
' P119YP',1- 111)16EPlEIR\RESPoKSE TO COMAffpTE \0.TCWCOAffFTDOf
�= United States Department of the Interior„ '
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue West �_�,.,°
Carlsbad, California 92008
MAR 3 1 1999 1
Colonel John P. Carroll
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Los Angeles District.
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles, California 90053 -2325 '
Attn: Spencer MacNeil, Regulatory Branch
Re: Pre-conshuction Notice (PCN) 98 -0032500 -SDM, Proposed Master Planned Community,
Unnamed Tributaries to Santa Gerlrudis Creek, City of Temecula, Riverside County,
California
Dear Colonel Carroll:
We have reviewed the above referenced Pre-construction Notice (PCN) for the proposed 500- ,
acre master - planned community in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. These
comments have been prepared under the authority, and in accordance with the provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.),
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and other authorities mandating Department
of the Interior concern for environmental values.
The proposed project would permanently impact 2.89 acres (9,700 linear feet) of waters of the '
United States characterized as sandy, imvegetated ephemeral streams: `According to the PCN, the
.... .
applicant proposes.to offset project re impacts liy preserving 1'.84 arses of the northern most
tributary. These1.84 acres of ephemeral stream would be expanded and supplemented by urban `
nmoff to create8 acres of riparian habitat
Our primary concerns regarding the proposed action are potential impacts to federally fisted
species and sensitive biological resources, avoidance of waters of the United States, and a lack of '
appropriate mitigation to offset unavoidable project - related impacts. According to the PCN, the
applicant has determined that the patches of coastal sage scrub located on the proposed project
site are unsuitable to support the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica, °gnatcatcher"). We request site - specific information regarding the extent
and distribution of coastal sage scrub within the project area be provided to our office so that we
can evaluate this assessment '
2 -42
PII49tlXN 16201\SEn EIRIRESWNSE TO 1OM1IN 111.. C.LIIVEI. 1
li
Colonel John P. Carroll - 2
' According to the PCN, the host plant for the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly
• (Euphydras editha guino, "butterfly ") occurs within isolated patches of coastal sage scrub on the
hilltops of the project site. In addition, the applicant reportedly will conduct butterfly surveys
during the adult flight season to determine the presence of this species on the subject property.
We request that these survey results be provided to our office.
The site of the proposed master - planned community is located in an area where vernal pools and
' the federally listed endangered Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottom) are known to
occur. We could not determine from the PCN whether the presence of vernal pools or Riverside
fairy shrimp was addressed in assessing project - related impacts. Information regarding the
presence of federally listed wildlife and a determination of potential impacts from project
implementation is necessary prior to issuance of an Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit In
addition, the occurrence of additional Corps jurisdictional wetlands (i.e. vernal pools) needs to be
examined prior to permit issuance.
1 We are also concerned that the loss of 9,700 feet of tributary waters will result in more than
minimal adverse environmental effects. Issuance of Nationwide Permit 26 for urban
development in the upper watershed of the Santa Margarita River, particularly within the
Murrieta and Temecula area, has continued to contribute cumulatively to the degradation of
stream functions within Murrieta Creek, including habitat support functions. Because
construction of the proposed master -plan community is not a water -dependent activity, we
presume other alternatives are available that would avoid and minimi >P impacts to aquatic
resources. Based on the PCN diagram entitled "404 Mitigation Study," a minor realignment of
the proposed school site apparently would avoid impacting a portion of the southern ephemeral
' watercourse. This same watercourse extending upstream, and including a buffer area, could be
incorporated as a feature of the proposed :`Lake Park" to further reduce project related impacts.
We recommend that the Corps not issue a permit for the proposed action, and that the applicant_
continue to work with us, the Corps, and other resource agencies to avoid and mimIII =' .
permanent impacts to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable.
Although creation of riparian habitat along the northern -most ephemeral stream is identified in
the PCN to offset project- related impacts, the proposed mitigation site may not have the Proper
hydrology or sor7s to support riparian vegdation... We recommend that the,apphcant submrt a
ti
migation and monrto
' ......- _ 1?°8 P�, fornapproval by the Carps and Fish and Wildhfe Service that .1,:.
addresses these issues prior to permit issuance This plan should provrde spectfrc information
regarding the existing site conditions, measures required to ensure proper hydrology'and its
sufficient to support riparian vegetation, Planting Palette, success criteria monitoring schedules,
and remedial measures in, the event the success criteria are not met . .
I n summary, we recommend that the Corps deny issuance of the subject permit This
' recommendation is based on our concerns for federally listed species, the failure to avoid impacts
to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable, and the lack of a mitigation
and monitoring plan that would ensure success of the proposed mitigation.. We appreciate this
Opportunity to comment on this project and recommend that a meeting be scheduled to resolve
2 -43
' P. \I99AViN14]01 \SEPf EIRUlE5PO... TO COhMENTS \RTCUOCUMENTW
Colonel John P. Carroll - 3
these issues. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Doreen Stadtlander of
my staff at (760) 431 -9440.
Sincerely,
'j"
Jim A. Bartel
Assistant Field Supervisor '
cc: CDFG, Region 6, Long Beach, CA (attn: G. Black)
EPA, San Francisco, CA (attn: M. Butterwick)
RWQCB, San Diego, CA (attn: G. Peters)
�t
2 -44
P V>491XN16E() I 1 El EIRIME 11E 10 CONLNEN S\RTCD UMTN, C ,
HARVESTON
' FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
• 9. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services.
' December 18, 2000
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services.
March 31, 1999 - included as an attachment to the above US Fish and Wildlife Service letter
' Response 9 -1
' Comment acknowledged. Please refer to responses, below.
Response 9 -2
The Service is concerned that the proposed project impacts to 15 acres of remnant coastal sage scrub has
the potential to impact habitat for the federally listed Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica
' califomica) (CAGN). The Service further comments that the surveys conducted on this site were not
detailed enough to detect CAGN. We do not agree for the following reasons: 1) CAGN is a year round
resident of Coastal Sage Scrub in southwestern Riverside County; 2) Surveys were conducted on the site
on August 4 and 28", 1998; September 15, 1998; February 19, 1999; March 22, 24, and 29, 1999; April
5, 10, and 25, 1999; and May 6, 1999; 3) The protocol for conducting CAGN focused surveys requires 6
weekly visits during the breeding season and covering no more than 25 acres per hour. This site has a
total of 15 acres of marginally potential habitat; and 4) Although no focused CAGN surveys were
conducted, the following outlines the number of hours spent on the site during the Quino Checkerspot
butterfly survey alone, which would have been sufficient to observe the existence of CAGN:
Surveys were conducted on the site on: March 22, 1999 6 hours
March 24, 1999 5 hours
March 29, 1999 6 hours
t April 5, 1999 6 hours
April 10, 1999 3 hours
April 25, 1999 5 hours
1 May 6, 1999 5 hours
No CAGN were observed during any of these surveys. Further, upon completion of the focused Quino
Checkerspot butterfly focused survey, Tom Dodson & Associates (Lisa Kegarice) contacted the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to discuss the necessity for focused CAGN surveys. Given the disturbed nature of
the parcel and the fact that none were observed during any of the previously conducted focused and
' general biological surveys observed; Michelle Shaughnessy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concluded a focused CAGN survey was not warranted.
t Response 9 -3
We do not concur with the Service's recommendation to conduct an updated Quino checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha quino)(QCB) survey for the following reasons. The protocol focused survey was
' conducted during the 1999 flight season. The result of this focused survey was there were no QCB
observed on the site. This result was confirmed and accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a
letter dated September 13, 1999 signed by Mr. Jim Bartel (included in Appendix A to this document).
' Once the QCB survey was accepted, the site has been disked annually. Therefore, we do not believe there
is any evidence that the site has the potential to support QCB.
2 -45
P:11"I9 N1621l�E -EIRV S-SlE N COMMEMSATCWCIIM -N -
HARVESTON '
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Response 9 -4
®'
The CNDDB was used as a resource tool to evaluate what sensitive species are known to occur in the
vicinity of the proposed project. This literature review was then used to focus the actual field surveys and
was not conducted in lieu of conducting field work.
Response 9 -5
The Service is concerned that the proposed project has the potential to impact habitat for the federally
listed Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus wootoni) (Riverside fairy shrimp). The Service further
recommends a protocol survey for vernal pools be conducted. We do not agree for the following reasons; 1
Riverside fairy shrimp is restricted to deep long -lived seasonal vernal pools, vernal pool like ephemeral
ponds, and stock ponds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Within western Riverside County, the
Riverside fairy shrimp is known from vernal pools at Skunk Hollow, just east of the I -15 on the Pechanga
Indian Reservation, and two localities in Rancho California along Highway 79. Riverside fairy shrimp
appears to remain only at two sites (Skunk Hollow and the Pechanga Indian Reservation). Both sites
along Highway 79 appear to have been graded. The type locality was graded in 1995 and the other site is
apparently now within the Murrieta Golf Course. '
A Jurisdictional Delineation was conducted on this site, and was accepted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. The result of this determination was that no ,
wetlands or ponding occurs on this site. In fact, the two drainage courses on the site do not flow and did
not flow even during the el niiio storms. The reason for this is the flows have been captured in to storm
drains off site and diverted. Therefore, there is no suitable habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp on this
site. No further surveys are warranted.
Response 9 -6
As referenced in Response 9-4, These concerns regarding the PCN were addressed directly with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers by personal communication (Lisa Kegarice), site visit, and a Biological
Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation which was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the California Department of Fish and Game. The PCN is an agency to agency notification. The
applicant has no control regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' response to comments raised '
during their PCN process. However, The responsible regulatory agencies, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, State Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Game
have concurred with our findings and have issued a Section 404 Permit, 401 Waiver, and 1603 Agreement
(respectively).
Response 9 -7
The Service states there are clay soils on the site and known Munz's onion (Allium munzii) populations
occur at nearby sites. The Service further recommends a protocol survey for Munz's onion be conducted
during the flowering period (April through May) by an experienced botanist. '
Munz's onion is endemic to southwestern Riverside County. This species is restricted to heavy clay soils
which are scattered along a several miles wide band and extending some 40 miles southeast from Corona 1
through Temescal Canyon and along the Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwestern foothills of the San
Jacinto Mountains from 300 to 1,000 meters elevation (Boyd 1988, Munz 1974; McNeal 1993). Munz's
onion is known from 13 extant populations distributed primarily in the western and southern areas of the
2 -46
P\1" WN 1620105 EIRU1 N5E M MMMENLSATC UM .WD '
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
• planning area (Roberts 1993; U.S. Fish grid Wildlife Service 1998; CNDDB 2000). Munz's onion is
' situated in widely scattered populations from Estelle Mountain and the Gavilan Plateau at Harford
Springs Park southeast through the hills north of Lake Elsinore (North Peak), to the Paloma Valley
(Briggs and Scott Roads), Skunk Hollow, and Lake Skinner area (Bachelor Mountain). There is also a
significant population at Elsinore Peak and other populations in the North Domenigoni Hills, Alberhill.
Skunk Hollow, and in Temescal Canyon (Boyd and Mistretta 1991; Winter 1991; CNDDB 2000). We do
not concur with the Service that these areas are "Nearby" the proposed project site. Because the nearest
population is approximately 5 miles away at Bachelor Mountain.
Further, according to the Western Riverside County Soil Survey, the following soils occur on this site:
RmE3 - Ramona and Buren Sandy Loam (15 -25 % slopes severely eroded)
RnE3 - Ramona and Buren Loams (5 -25% slopes severely eroded)
RaB2 - Ramona Sandy Loam (2 -5% slopes eroded)
' RaC3 - Ramona Sandy Loam (5 -8% slopes highly eroded)
RaC2 - Ramona Sandy Loam (5 -8% slopes eroded)
HcA - Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam (0 -2 %)
' HcC - Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam (2 =8% slopes)
HcD2 - Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam (8 -15% slopes eroded)
GyC2 - Greenfield Sandy Loam (2 -8% slopes eroded)
Wg* - Willow Silty Clay - Saline alkali
* small area of this silty clay occurred where the school site has been constructed. This is a silty.
alkali soil and not a "Heavy Clay" typically associated with the Munz's onion,
The above soils list does not have any clay soils, therefore there is no suitable habitat occurring on the
proposed project site. Additionally, Ms. Lisa Kegarice is a qualified botanist who has conducted Munz's
onion survey work, and the field surveys were conducted during the April - May blooming period.
Therefore, it is logical to conclude the species would have been detected during these surveys, and no
further surveys are warranted.
' Response 9 -8
' The Service recommends three additional species be surveyed for prior to the completion of FEIR. These
species are: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris
bervinasus) and San Diego black - tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii).
' The burrowing owl is a State Species of Concern and has no Federal status. This species was not
observed during the field surveys, and no further surveys are recommended.
' The San Diego black - tailed jack rabbit is a State Species of Concern and has no Federal status. This
species was not observed during any of the field investigations, and no further surveys are recommended.
' The Los Angeles pocket mouse is a State Species of Concern and has no Federal status. This species
"inhabits open ground of fine sandy composition (Brylski et al. 1993). This subspecies may be restricted
to lower elevation grassland and coastal sage scrub (Patten et al. 1992). This species was not identified
during the 1988 trapping study, and the site has been chronically disturbed by disking. Therefore, we do
not recommend further surveys.
1
2 -47
P: %1"WN16201\ M E]RU SMNSE TO COMME'+RVtiCCCLUMENT.UCC
HARVESTON '
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Response 9 -9
®'
The Service states the proposed project will have a significant impact on raptors that use these types of
undeveloped areas within this region for foraging habitat. This issue was evaluated in the DEIR and
found to be very low value for raptor forage. The rational for this is the site has been chronically
disturbed and is being actively maintained by disking. Therefore, it does not offer high quality raptor
foraging habitat. This is evident by the very low diversity of raptor species observed during the field
surveys (red- tailed hawk and American kestrel). There is only one Elderberry tree /shrub occurring on the '
property, which does not offer a roosting opportunity for raptor species. We do not concur with the
Service's conclusion, therefore, we do not recommend mitigating for this marginal foraging area.
Response 9 -10 i
The Service believes the loss of the approximately 15 acres of coastal sage scrub that occurred in small '
remnant patches on this site represents a significant cumulative loss, and recommends mitigating these
impacts at a 3:1 ratio. We to do not believe these small remnant patches which totaled approximately 15
acres across the approximately 550 acres site are suitable to support the CAGN, and no CAGN have been
identified on the site. Additionally, this mitigation ratio is higher than the Service's mitigation ratios ,
required for occupied habitat in the AD -161 subregional planning area. We to not believe this is a
reasonable request given other mitigation requirements and the degraded nature of these remnant patches.
Additionally, it should be noted that the adopted Army Corps and Fish and Game mitigation plan for the
Arroyo Park includes coastal sage scrub as part of the revegetation buffer.
Response 9 -11
Although it is impossible to ascertain which alternative will ultimately be selected by Riverside County,
according to the figures for all the Draft MSHCP Alternatives this project will be outside the area '
identified for these habitat linkages.
Response 9 -12 '
As discussed in Responses 9 -5 and 9 -6, a Jurisdictional Delineation was conducted on this site, and was
accepted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. The t
result of this determination was that no wetlands or ponding occurs on this site. In fact, the two drainage
courses on the site do not flow and did not flow even during the El Nino storms of 1997. The reason for
this is the flows have been captured in to storm drains off site and diverted. Therefore, the Waters of the
United States were in name only and not function. ,
The project was issued a Nationwide Permit #26 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, This type of
permit cannot be issued if a significant loss or degradation to our Nations's waters will result from the '
proposed action. Further, all the responsible regulatory agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Game have concurred
with the FONSI (Finding of Non Significant Impacts). '
A mitigation plan was prepared for this project and accepted by the above referenced resource agencies.
These agencies concurred with our expectation for a successful mitigation area. Additionally, the
applicant has issued a performance bond to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to insure the mitigation
plan is implemented and successful. •
2-48
P:\IWBWN 1620 1 GSM EIFN MNSE TO COMMEMSWTCOOCfIMEM.WC '
HARVESTON
' FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
• Response 9 -13
The DEIR identifies the vegetation data that you requested. The area adjacent to I -15 is not on the project
property. We do not believe it is a reasonable request to conduct surveys on adjacent properties and
t include these data in the FEIR. We do not have permission to access these lands, nor is it consistent with
CEQA to determine offfsite resources when no direct impacts are expected.
' Response 9 -14
Comment acknowledged. Revisions and further clarifications have been incorporated into the EIR.
Regarding discrepancy on page 5 -134, native has been revised to non - native, and regarding comment on
page 5 -155, clarification has been added to indicated that the site has been disked for weed abatement
following the September L3, 1999 US Fish and Wildlife Service approval of the Quino surveys
conducted by Tom Dodson and Associates (please refer to pages, 5 -134 and 5 -155 in Section 3.0 Errata
to the Draft EIR). These modification do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR nor do they raise any
significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Response 9 -15
The entire property was surveyed using a mapped boundary. The Focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
' Survey was submitted to the Service and accepted. Editing this report would be inappropriate. The
estimated acreage of 500 was a close approximation of the site's acreage, and the exact acreage does not
change the findings.
Response 9 -16
' Please refer to Responses 9 -3, 9 -4, 9 -7 through 9 -9, above that substantiate the conclusions of the Draft
EIR that there are no significant biological resources on the project site. Therefore, no alternative project
would be necessary to mitigate for resources that do not exist on the project site.
t Response 9 -17
Please refer to all the above responses.
1
2 -49
1 P.\I9-M62011EPl EIF POME TO COMMWM TCDOCUMEM WC
LETTER #10 ,
WINCHESTER HILLS LLC
P.O. BOX 261109
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92196.1109 '
(760) 471 -0500
December 18, 2000
FACSIMILE (909- 694 -6477) & U S MOIL
City of Temecula '
Community Development Department
Attn: Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033 ,
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033
Re: Comments on Alternatives Discussed in the Harveston Specific Plan Draft '
Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR "), State Clearing House No. 99041033
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
This letter comprises part of the comments of Winchester Hills LLC with respect to the subject
DEIR,
Section 6.0, "Alternatives to the Proposed Project" and specifically. Section 6.2.1, "Alternative
Business Plan Land Use" does not, in our opinion, meet the criteria for an "Alternative" as that
term is used pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). There are four
threshold tests for suitable Alternatives provided by CEQA. Alternatives that do not meet all ,
four criteria may not be considered as Alternatives for purposes of CEQA. 10 -1
The criteria for an "Alternative" as the term is used by CEQA is that the Alternative must be (1) '
feasible, (2) obtain or satisfy most basic Project objectives, (3) significantly reduce
environmental impacts, and (4) are reasonable. See Public Resource Code §21002; 14 Cal Code
Regulations 15126.6(a) -(b).
The "Business Park Land Use Alternative" (DEIR Section 6.2.1) fails to meet three of the four '
criteria mentioned above. First, contrary to the statement in the EIR page 6.4, it is not a "feasible
alternative" as the term "feasible" is used for purposes of CEQA. '
The property in question is subject to a Community Facility District, CFD 98 -02, which has
financed over $12 million in capital facilities such as streets, sewers, drainage facilities, etc. in
advance of any Specific Plan benefiting the City of Temecula development. '
t
2 -50
P.% 199M8N 16201 15EIT EIRWESPoNSE TO COM1 TMS ITCOOCUM NT, C '
1
• Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
' December 18, 2000
Page 2
' Alternative 6.2.1 is contrary to the Rate and Method of Apportionment and land uses (i.e. service
commercial) assumed as part of the formation of CFD No. 98 -2. In effect, the debt carried by
this area of the project imposes such a tremendous burden on the Winchester LLC ownership char
' it may preclude the viability of development in [his area for the suggested Alternative.
Nor does the "Business Park Alternative" significantly reduce environmental impacts. The EIR
concedes that there are no significant environmental effects arising from land use
incompatibilities between the service commercial portion of the Specific Plan and the existing
adjacent business park/light industrial uses. Therefore no finding can be made that this
significantly reduces environmental impacts. Further, the reduction of transportation impacts 10 -1
' projected to anse with this Alternative is nominal at best. The Business Park Alternative does (Cont.)
not reduce the significant traffic impacts under the City Buildout scenario to less than significant
levels.
' One of the basic Project objectives of the Harvest project is to provide tax base to the City of
Temecula. The substitution of the Business Park Alternative would effectively preclude this goal
and instead, substitute office for a significant portion of the non - residential areas of the Specific
Plan, providing sales tax revenue.
The Business Park Alternative is not "unreasonable," but as a practical matter it appears to have
even little planning value. Acceptable planning practice dictates that the use of land for freeway
frontage at a major arterial interchange be commercial, rather than business park. Clearly,
visibility in this location aids the property's use as commercial as opposed to business park where
the visibility is of little value.
' The DEIR makes the argument that including a Business Park Alternative will provide a "better
transition between the service commercial within the Specific Plan Area... and the existing
adjacent business park/Light Industrial uses." It is to be noted however, that service
commercial/business park interface still exists under the Alternative offered. Clearly, any land
use interface issues should be addressed through site planning considerations. The lack of land
use and compatibilities between these two areas is noted in the EIR, thus undercutting the very
argument [hat is made in favor of this Alternative.
We therefore request that the City of Temecula delete for the reasons stated, Section 6.2.1 of the
DEIR, the "Business Park Land Use Alternative," as an Alternative under consideration by the
City in conjunction with its review of this project.
The DEIR proposes phasing of public improvements and project build out that is not consistent
with our proposal or needs. We request that the DEIR be revised cc allow all of [he service
' commercial area to be improved in the first phase and to develop consistent with the build our 10 -2
1
1
2 -51
' PI11- 11XNIt.$ III \SEPf EIR \RESPONSE TO COXLNENL$ \RTCOOCIIMEM.
1
Ms. Debbie Ubnoskc
December 18, 2000 '
Page 3
per year assumptions, deleting the south to north directional phasing. This will.allow the '
commercial area to react to the needs of the market. Allowing flexible location phasing will
assist in attracting the desired users to the area. Further, we request that the public improvement 10 -2
phasing be revised as follows: The Ynez Road commercial frontage half width north to the last (Cont.) '
access point should be a first phase improvement. Date Street between Ynez and the commercial
access road should be a first phase improvement. It is necessary to construct these improvements
in the first phase so the project can react to the changing needs of the market. We request that
Exhibits 10 and 10a be revised accordingly. '
I remain,
]'ruly
r_
C r
on behalf of
Winchester Hills, LLC
SAB:cas
cc: Ray Becker
Richard A. Schulman
1
®1
2 -52
PAI99&HN I6N I1SEP1' EIR1RESPONSE TO CO1WE YfSRTCOOCUME.. 1'_WC '
f
HARVESTON
' FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
• 10. Winchester Hills, LLC. December 18, 2000
Response 10 -1
Please refer to Response 8 -1, above, regarding the Land Use Alternative (Business Park Land Use) issue.
Response 10 -2
�- As requested in this comment, the Draft EIR has been revised to indicate that there is some flexibility
regarding phasing of the Service Commercial property. Modifications to project phasing may require
further transportation analysis, based upon the status of the Harveston project, adjacent land uses and
transportation facilities should any specific phasing proposal be made (refer to page 3 -21 and Exhibits 10
and 10a, in Section 3.0 Errata to the Draft EIR).
Additionally, for changes to the Business Park Land Use Alternative, please refer to response 8 -1, above.
�
2 -53
' - W-.LMRW-- FM-1N12 =EIRW IMNSE TO COMMEMSRICCCCOMEM.CCC
- LETTER #11 ,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research *�
State Clearinghouse`s
Gray Davis Steve Nissen
GOVERNOR ACrtac Dnrcroa
December 19, 2000
Patty Anders n City of Terneculs
P.O. Box 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033
Subject: Harveston Specific Plan -
SCH #: 2000111014
Dear Parry Anders:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected stare agencies for review. -On the
enclosed Document Details Report please now that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that
reviewed your document. The review period closed on December 18, 2000, and the comments from the
responding agency lies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please norlfy the State
Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future
correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(e) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsnbic or other public agency shall only snake substantive comments regarding those 11 -1
activities involved in a project which are widen an area of expertise of the agency or which arc
required to be carried our or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation"
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of The enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
' environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the Stare
Clearinghouse at (9 16) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Terry Robes f�
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SAGBAMBNTO, CALIFORNIA 95812 -304
916 - 445-06X3 FAX 916 - 3 2 3 - 30 18 mWW DYR- CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTUL
le i
2 -54
P. %I9 g%8N16211115E"EIRIRE5p .NSET000\1ME. 1S1 TCO UN1 MDCC
HARVESTON
' FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
• 11. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse. December 19, 2000
Response 11 -1
The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision - makers.
1
2 -55
P.U9 WN 16'_PHSEPI' EM SPON5E TO COMMEMMTCD INT DOC
LETTER #12
�o°`" —�� COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE E TRANSPORTATIONAND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY -;
i�
Planning Department
Richard K. Lashhrook Aleta J. Lawrence, A.LCP.
Agency Direcor Planning Director
SENT VIA US MAIL t
December 26, 2000
City of Tcinecula
Attn: Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92559 -9033
RF.: DRAFT ENVIRONMF.NTAI. IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FORTH E HARVESTON
SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH 999041033).
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
Thank you for providing the County of Riverside Planning Department the opportunity to review and
comment on (he draft environmental document for the above- referenced project. As agreed in discussion
with Patty Anders on December 22, 2000, the County of Riverside Planning Department was given until
December 29, 2000, to respond to the DEIR. Staff has completed review of the document and has prepared
the following comments for your consideration:
L The flatveston Specific Plan DEIR (hereafter cited as "DEIR) incorporates by reference earlier
analyses which were included as a pall of the Appendices to the Winchester Hills ScreeneJ eck
Specific Plan/EIR. Also, the DEIR contains in its Appendices documents that refer to the
Sweetwater Specific Plan. What is the relationship of these two specific plans with the project 12 -1
under current review? A summary should be included in Section 1.0 of the DEIR that lists '
pertinent projects that have previously been submitted to the City of Tenhecula and located within
the chnlent project's boundaries. This summary should include a project description and the
environmental documentation prepared in conjunction with each project for clarification.
2. Was a draft and final EiR prepared and circulated for public review and comment for the
Winchester Hills Specific Plan? If so, the date of preparation is also essential to determine whether 112 -2
tine use of such studies is still valid. '
3. The Notice of Completion, included as a part of the DEM, does not indicate whether any previous
environmental reviews for the project site were prepared under a different project title. 12 -3
ICIca side Office - 4050 Lcmon Semen, 9th Floor Indio office - 82 -615 Hwy 111, 2nd Floor Munniz. Office 39403 Los Alamos Road
P. O. Ro. 160:7 • RiPOtsidc, Glifomi:, 9250 -1409 Rm 209, Indio, C1alifornia 92201 Municta, California 92563
ronn, uit.ilnn. 4AY ln,ln \ocC.l", 17691 QAA- 111CC•PAY 11AA %041 -1111 rnnnt Ana - 6170. rAY to lA,"?ds
2 -56
P119998N 1620[ISE" EMIRESPONSE Tn CO.ISIETCnO UO 11.pCC
• City ufTemecula
DEIR. Harveston Specific Plan
Page 2 of 2
4. The DEIR does not adequately address Biological Resources found on the project site.
The most recent biological assessment, and the only supporting documentation included
in the drall for a finding of less than significant impacts to Biological Resources, was a
focused survey for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. This assessment made only a
cursory examination of existing site vegetation and potential habitat for species listed by
United Slates Fish and Wildlife Service (USF &WS) as threatened and endangered or
those listed as Species of Special Concern by California Department of Fish and Game 12 -4
(CDFG). Yet the Biological Resources section of the DETR states that there is I '2ero
probability" for occurrence of several such listed species (i.e., Stephen's kangaroo rat and
the coastal California gnatcatcher) due to site disturbance and based on previous
environmental assessments of the site conducted in 1988 and 1989. A current and
comprehensive biological site assessment should be conducted by a USF&WS permitted
biologist and included as a part of the DEIR for public review.
I i 5. Under the Biological Resources section of the DLIR, it states that the project proponent
has obtained 1603 and 404 permits from the CDFG and U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers,
respectively. These permits are required if project implementation would result in the 12 -5
diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes to the channel, best or bank of any
river, stream or lake. Were these permits issued for the current project prior to
environmental review?
6. The DFIR states that impacts to schools have been mitigated as a result of negotiations
with Murrieta Valley and Temecula Unified School Districts. Documentation, from the 12 -6
school districts that service the project site, should be included in the DEIR to support
this finding.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and submit comments on the Ilarveston Specific Plan
DEER.
Respectfully,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Aleta J. Laurence, A.LC.P., Planning Director
_1 � -�7ee
Kattileen Browne, Project Manager
CC; Supervisor Bob Busier, First District
Supervisor Iiar Venable, Thud District
' Dave Stahovich
Mary Moreland
' vatL'_vfu60tVnlieFH Lo�VtrtPUrsVUrvnlDn Eev.vpp
2 -- 57
P \I- 1-1-11 'SEPT EIR \RESPONSE TO COMMENTS \RTCO LNIEN7D
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
12. County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency. December 26, 2000
Response 12 -1
Section 3.4 (History of Project) of the Draft EIR, on page 3 -20, indicates that the 552 -acre project site has
been previously evaluated in the Winchester Hills Specific Plan/EIR, prepared by T &B Planning
Consultants on February 1, 1993. However the Draft EIR for Winchester Hills was never circulated and
approved. Please also refer to Section 1.5, Project Description Modification, which discusses the
modification of the April 1999 land use plan contained in the Initial Study NOP and referred to at that
time as "Winchester Hills ". The Harveston Specific Plan project under current review was previously
called "Winchester Hills" and "SweetWater ", and currently no specific plan within the City of Temecula
exists under these two names. Although some of the technical appendices refer to the project as
"SweetWater ", the first technical report in Appendix B, Traffic Impact Study, indicates that the Harveston
project was formerly known as "SweetWater ".
Regarding the technical appendices to the Harveston Draft EIR, all of the technical studies contained in
the Harveston Draft EIR are new studies or updates (i.e. geotechnical and biological resources studies) of
prior studies.
I
Response 12 -2
Please refer to Response 12 -1, above regarding the status of the prior Winchester Hills Draft Specific
Plan/EIR.
Response 12 -3
Please refer to Response 12 -1, above. The Draft EIR for the Winchester Hills Specific Plan was never ,
circulated for public review, nor did it become a certified document.
Response 12 -4
Please refer to the Letter #9 from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Responses 9 -1 through 9 -17).
Additionally, regarding the commentor's statement that the only recent bio assessment was a focused
survey for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly is incorrect. As indicated in Appendix G and in Section 5.8 of
the Draft EIR, a new biological assessment and jurisdictional determination was conducted for the
Harveston project in 1999, which was published in the June 1999 report. These assessments were all
conducted by Tom Dodson and Associates biologist who is a US Fish and Wildlife "permitted" biologist
and a County of Riverside approved biologist.
Response 12 -5
The US Army Corps of Engineers completed their own NEPA review prior to the issuance of the 404
permit for the proposed project. Please refer to Response 9 -12, above. This 404 permit is valid through
February 11, 2002. The California Department of Fish and Game issued the 1603 permit prior to the
Department's adopted standard practice of requiring a certified CEQA document for permit issuance. The
current 1603 permit is valid through September 1, 2002.
®i
2 -58
P:U9 WN 1620 MEPT EIR@ PONSE TO COMMENTS%M GOMENI.CCC •,
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
• Response 12 -6
As stated in the Draft EIR, the project site is located solely within the Temecula Valley Unified School
District boundary.
Appendix A to the Draft EIR, which is written comments in response to utility questionnaires, includes
documentation of the school district that services the project site. Please refer to Item 8 of the April 9,
1999, correspondence from Ms. Janet Dixon of the Temecula Valley Unified School District.
2 -59
P99980N161016EPT EM MNSE TO COM NTSRTCDO 1NENT.COC
LETTER #13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS. TRANSPOF .N AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DA015. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION —
DISTRICT 8
464 W Fourth Street, 6th Floor MS 726
San Bernardino, CA 92401.1400
PHONE (909) 383 -6327
FAX (909) 383 -6890
November 15,1999
Cj NOV 1 7 1999 +JI
08- Riv- 79- R3.300 fey — � I
Ms. Patty Anders
Assistant Planner
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033
Dear Ms. Anders:
Sweetwater Specific Plan
The City of Temecula should ensure that the applicant complies with the current
Congestion Management Program in place as defined by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (1997). 13 -1
Please forward all future plans and documents to this office regarding this proposal.
If you have any questions, please contact Jim Belty at (909) 383 -4473 or FAX (909)
383 -6890
Sincerely,
LINDA GRIMES, Chief
Office of Forecasting/
IGR/CEQA Review
c: Mosie Boyd, State Clearinghouse
I�
2 -60
P.1IMUN16? „166 tEIR1 ESI SE TO [06LNENTSNTCWCUA�ATDC[' '
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
'• 13. Department of Transportation, District 8. November 15, 1999
Response 13 -1
The EIR traffic study document prepared according to the requirements of the City of Temecula has been
forwarded to Caltrans District 8 as requested. The traffic study addresses near term (2002), project build -
out (2005) and long term (post 2015) traffic conditions in the project vicinity. This is consistent with the
requirements set forth by the City Traffic Engineer.
Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) system components in the project vicinity include
I� State Route 79 South, Interstate 15, and Interstate 215. The traffic study addresses the cumulative
impacts at all nearby intersections along Winchester Road and at interchanges with both Interstate 15 and
Interstate 215. Measures have been identified that will mitigate any identified project impacts at these
locations.
The Harveston Specific Plan proposes a mixed -use development that offers a combination of residential
and non - residential uses. This will help to internalize trips. The Specific Plan also provides for an
' extensive network of trails and recreational opportunities that will encourage non - motorized travel.
It should also be noted that the City of Temecula is actively supporting the establishment of an interim
' Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUNE) that would help fund needed regional improvements.
Once approved, these fees would apply to area development projects such as the Harveston Specific Plan.
i
1
1
2 -61
' P\I99-NIO20MI - EIRU1I5 EN COMA¢MSRTcW uU M. c
STA'%OF CALJFURNIA— gU51NE55. TRANSPORTATION,. HOUSING AGENCY LETTER #14
GR AY DAVIS, Gavemar
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -
DISTRICT 8
464 W Fourth Street, 6 Floor MS 726
San Bernardino, CA 92401 -1400
PHONE (909) 383 -6327
FAX (909) 383 -6890
aus 3
August 27, 2000
By
08- Riv -15- 6.623/7.692 -�
Ms. Patty Anders
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589 -9033
Dear Ms. Anders:
Vesting Tentative Tract 2 9639 Harveston Specific Plan
Lennar Homes, Applicant
We have received the Development Review Committee project transmittal package for the
above noted project, located adjacent to Interstate 15, to the northwest of State Route 79
(Winchester Road) and Margarita Road. Total project area is identified as 533.6 acres and
includes 29 lots designated for future development. However, two differing parcel
configuration alternatives are under consideration for service commercial uses within the
Specific Plan.
We have several concerns with potential project impact to 1 -15 right of way and adjoining
freeway facilities. These include concerns with future project grading, slope construction
and installation of proposed drainage improvements. Based on information provided on
VTM 29639, issuance of a Caltrans encroachment permit appears likely. When copies of
oroiect rough grading and drainage construction plans are available, please forward copies
to us so that we may fully evaluate the extent of project impacts to I -15 right of way. For
other information regarding permit application and submittal requirements, please contact:
Office of Permits
California Department of Transportation
464 West Fourth Street, 6th Floor, MS -619
San Bernardino, CA 92401 -1400
(909) 383-4536
Also, you are likely aware of preliminar y engineering studies that have been developed for I �.
a new interchange in this immediate vicinity. Although several alternatives have been
proposed, the specific interchange location and final design alternative has not yet been 14 -1
determined. At this time, current interchange proposals appear to primarily affect the area
shown on VTM 29639 as Lot 74 under the Date Street Alternative, and Lots 74 -76 under
the Cherry Street Alternative.
2 -62
P. \IYYFB� 14IDI�SEPr EIRIRESPOM1TE TO CO>P�f,TS \RTC WCWIEM.000
Ms. Patty Anders
August 27, 2000
• Page 2
�V In addition to a concern with direct project impacts to I -15, we are also concerned with
"cumulative" traffic impacts associated with continued development in this area. With
regard to Specific Plan traffic impact studies, we recommend ensuring compliance with I4 -2
pertinent mitigation policies outlined in the Riverside County Transportation
Commission's Congestion Management Program. This may include utilizing "fair- share"
mitigation fee contributions to a local fund designated for use in building or upgrading area
transportation infrastructure.
If or when available, please forward copies of the Harveston Specific Plan and related
Environmental Impact Report so that we may fully evaluate the potential project impact to
I -15 facilities. Other comments addressing this development proposal will follow our
review of these documents.
Thank you for providing us this opportunity to review and offer our comments on Vesting
Tentative Map 29639 for DRC consideration. If you have any questions regarding this
letter, please contact Ms. Rosa F. Clark at (909) 383 -6908 for assistance.
Sincerely,
LINDA GRUVIES, Chief
Office of Forecasting/IGR -CEQA Review
Transportation Planning Division
cc: F. Lehr, Freeway Operations
P. Romo, Hydraulics
N. Athulum, Enc. Permits -Riv. Co.
i B. Ko, Program/Project Manager
G. Ramirez, Prog. Eng. Studies
H. Sugita, RCTC
CACL k's WorkkLma iv\15TEM_Huv tooSP_VTrR29639 DRC.dm
2 -63
P11 -A1tl 16_0115EPr EIR1RE5F 111 TO CON IE. fS%RTCIX UNEM'.IIOC
HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
14. Department of Transportation, District 8. August 27, 2000 ®�
Response 14 -1
We are aware of the preliminary engineering studies that have either been completed or are currently
underway. Additionally, we concur that the interchange proposals primarily affect Lots 74 -76 shown on
VTM 29639. Agreements should be reached between the Developer, City of Temecula and Caltrans
District 8 that will insure that right -of way is preserved for the planned Date /Cherry interchange.
Response 14 -2
Please refer to the Response 13 -1, above.
2 -64
F\I"MN 16201�ER EMRW NSE TO COMMEMS TCf UY1 .O
' HARVESTON
FINAL EIR / RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 3.0 ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIR
• 3.0 ERRATA TO THE DRAFT EIR
1 The following modifications to the Draft EIR are as indicated on the following pages. In some instances.
recommendations and questions raised in the comments have necessitated revisions to the Draft EIR text.
Where appropriate, the response directs readers to a specific page or pages in the EIR. Changes made to
the EIR text in response to comments are indicated in strikeew (deletion) and highlighted (additions) text.
The following errata pages / exhibits reflect these changes and modifications to the Draft EIR. It should
i be noted that the exhibit modifications are not shown with strikeout or highlighted text. The updated
exhibits have been included in this Errata with the revised January 2001 date. The changes to the original
text (see following pages with page numbers as they appear in the Draft EIR), which consist of
completeness or accuracy edits, are being corrected at this time. The changes to the Draft EIR as they
relate to issues contained within this Errata Section do not affect the overall conclusions of the
environmental document. Please refer to the following pages of Section 3.0.
Revisions / modifications to the Draft EIR have come about due to the following:
3.1 REVISIONS/EDITs BASED ON COMMENT LETTERS
1 These changes have resulted from comments received from agencies, groups, and individuals on the Draft
EIR, during the 45 -day review period (November 1, 2000 through December 18, 2000). These revisions
include correction of typographical errors and minor additions and deletions
3.2 UPDATED LAND USE PLAN
More detailed lotting and residential phasing studies (conducted subsequent to the release of the Draft
EIR) have resulted in updates to the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4 in the Draft EIR). These updates to the
Land Use Plan include, 1) planning area and zoning categories acreage and unit count changes; 2)
planning area configuration changes and 3) minor modifications in phases 1 and 2. These modifications
will be reflected in the Final Specific Plan document and in the revised Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4) and
Statistical Summary Table 3.1, Phasing Table 4, and Exhibits 10 and 10a in this Response to Comments
document. It should be noted that, not all revised pages of the Draft EIR which duplicate these changes
will be included as Errata pages in this document.
It should also be noted that revisions to the Land Use Plan (which do not result in changes to the total
number of residential units, acreage of service commercial and acreage of village center) do not alter the
findings, mitigations and conclusions of the Draft EIR nor do they raise any significant issues that were
not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, these
modifications do not trigger preparation of a supplemental EIR or re- circulation of the Draft EIR, because
"the new information added to the EIR (i.e., updated land use and phasing plans) merely clarifies or
amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR."
' 3.3 REVISIONS/EDITS BASED ON INFORMAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS
Temecula City staff has provided comments on the Draft EIR, which have resulted in changes to the Draft
' EIR. These changes included clarifications, minor additions and deletions. Additionally, City staff
provided comments on the design of major entry to the project off Margarita Road. These design
comments have resulted in re- configuration of the major entry to the project off Margarita Road, which
has been reflected on the circulation plan (Exhibits 6 and 6a). Additionally, it should be noted that the
alignment of Ynez Road and the alignment at the I -15 are both conceptual at this time. These alignments
• are contingent upon Caltrans' final approval of the project study report, which is currently being
conducted. This section also includes updated EIR traffic section pages, which reflect the most recent
traffic study pages, which were included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
3 -1
P11- MN16'01M -EIKW S5 N5EN NMMEMS TcD cu E W
•
r
3.1 RE VISIONS/EDITS BASED ON COMMENT LETTERS
r
r
,�le
1
' HARVESTON EIR 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• 3.5 PHASING
It is expected that the proposed project will be phased over a 3- to 10 ear period, in response to market
demands and according to the logical and orderly extension of roadways, public utilities and
infrastructure. Please refer to Figure 12. 1, Development and Roadway Phasing Plan and Table 12. 1,
Development Phasing. Additionally, please refer to Figure 12.1a, 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 1 and is currently under construction. The lake /lake park, the village
' green, residential developments in Planning Areas 3 (partially), 4 (patiall, 6, and 7 (partially-) will be
completed in the later part of Phase I of the project. Phase 2 of the development will complete Planning
Araa�S the cernaii o ° fiPlan riing Are 3 an' d'portio sn o f`Elannin g Area l? `° - °- ° - a° - of D also onmplpte Planning A,
pla The residential development in Planning Areas 2 and 8 and remainder of Planning Area land 3 will be
completed in Phase 3, along with the Pasco 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 11 in Section 5.9 of the EIR The hasing of the
service commercial area in Planning Area 12 is consistent with the assumptions in the traWlic study, dated
July 19 2000 Phasmg�a m ions mY e for the." service commercial site specific
and couldoccur eithei a�tthe nortbem of southern ° ° ~ " ' # ` "" '" "
y portion oftthe servtce.commeTCia property,contUngent
u "ofainfrastruct to'su Although the phasing plan in the traffc study
a sl o includes a phase 5 within pplanning 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 Figure 12.1 as occurring in 4 phases.
' 3.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
A statement of objectives is required by Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The
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.
r
P: \199MN16201\EMO.0- PROJ.DE CRIMON.DOC 3 -21
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 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.
Additronally atscreenmg level, m}croscale .au }quality phot spot analysisp cond icted� fa the Iwo
rr,� ,x „ 3 c era 4i i t':mot' M ,d ".^E^. r •'aautii - ei.�au YsR�«.�wN'" ,..ft ;:ixt;ON.
intersections This analystsnncorporates worst -caseratmosphenc dispersion condttions.and maximum traffic
Rr 9S V n s � t� . � s. �= + a V x _. nxm tq atit 1. to' predicCCO concentrations,," very, close p r rv oximtt y d�¢toi� the roadwa ed ge The x =hour a concentrations,are foll ows_
Wtnctieste / 1 Ynez � y R" nk lv
p � lP 1p Source C alL a Air, Quahty Technical otes 2 2 988
i Existing peak ho�itr backgro nd CO'levels are 5 0 pp It would r q ire a local c ntnbuuon of 15 pp o
equal CO,�s�tandazd� The matcunum�theorettcalEcombtned background (S
' Local (6`ppm) oncentiatlonislll m ppm. 'Based upo n�tfiaxresults "of ?tlus4analysis ther no:COihot
spot- wtlun theproj
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. n
P1199MN16201�E1R� *MR.QUA DO 5 -99
r
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.
r 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 nan; ative grasses with
fair to poor coverage, separated by numerous dirt roads and trails. There is little evidence of erosion due
r 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,
r 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 F ACILITIES
' 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
r P91998IN16201�IRS 7 -HI RODOC 5 -134
' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
• HARVESTON EIR 5.8 BI OL OG ICAL 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
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 no[ currently exist on stte. Itshould bepnoted'lliaia
[he srteph s been diskedforlweeabate'men� following the September` 1 °3, k1999sUS Flsh andTWildlife
c `s. sx ,m i ..a;
approval�ofrfhe Q uinoaurve y sconducte d by jTom Dodsonsand.AssocraCes 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:\19 WN16201TMR 8 -BIO. B DOC 5 -155
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
• HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
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 lake 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 -made 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 ao cistin 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
M 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).
' Reel......... Plant which :..', % , H ed an d a pe F ated b the D....ehn Ga"f...- is Water District. The pinar -:c
1APate4 At Cl«. ct_,.et 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.
' PM99WNI6 OI1E1R6.9 P5UDOC 5 -166
v� w
> F
ra 1
z�
O O W N �D 'V V� 00 N 00 �D -' M,00 O O\ C\ V �T
r O 00 r Vl N X W C a\ W O\ O\' M M N
O � A
U Cd >.
^a A f V O V M Ol m O
Z Q C N N m W r M N N W D\ 7 M
� F
C Vj W
in A o
Z A a W pp p p g p N
F 00
3 8
N N
N a 7a]]U ` o
Q� UUU
°QeeeeeQeeeQQ�� o
F Ca,AAAAAy AAAp„y �;�
o , b
°C7 `��a�aa�aag
' a SSQ0g00C g��������
F 'u
' Q
E
a U U V" V V U V A
A m q A q y ¢¢ Q¢ Q Q¢ a E
Z Ov o oov Mov,'!'oov,'(' N
. = N m o r OM N o o°o r �p N O ,.,, N
aA " "
G
O
7
N - l•'+ - • N •r t U 0.' E a O O tc
a 7
3 V L 3 3 .�. Y E v o • � P. O
x
w _
' Z F O — NMVin�roo c� °'"'N I SC � u
• E" a
99 Q
z
N P4 W B
W V
W w
►� w z o
w �A, N P�
M o
vliavaavw, _ - -- �
cu
cn
7 rn ' • r _ �� \ N bq
LL o •fie . W a
:\
Lo
i ♦. �h r
r N
—� • ♦:�/
N H .............. .t Y
I � I
•' a • _�
• I C7 Q lh =Z)
OWm ( rn p
¢� J I• I O �•I � Oj U �:� � I I
w W O N : ` : N
i LL O w z ao !�• O0� r• W Z
F mmm • \• W m Cl ! 7
o
i • i i
• , � �.,. Vi i •
HUH • =UH N: U
OQZ
r pro ♦ OO l � • 2IL ��...
wNm • �a.� �..
�� •� U
• `l
.. . . . ... ............... • .........o... . � • n� 1 �O
met
' N U N �.� •• h
O W :
W
In
' r •� O
r
r
r
.O
_ v
v
w
N
•
Q
' 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE
' 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 Alterriative
This alternative proposes 30 -acre of Business Park within [fie 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 ,fthe 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 periltted within the Harveston Specific Plan. yep ne dmg;onKthefinallocakion oathe in[erchau' ge
fheB usiness�Park ''alternative° mayconstia'ih' �t e;,a'iht implement,tcommercial _uses�+south`of�,Date
Street^ The following provides an environmental assessment of this alternative (refer to Extubit 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
P: \1998 \8n16201\Sept EI R\ E6t- 8- 00\EIR \6.0- Altematives.dm
1
•
i
1
i
1
1
i
3.2 UPDATED LAND USE PLAN
1
1
1
1�
i
Q a )
E
Z u rn Lj u u
Mme" w N v w V
Q N
r T.� ❑ N G N v p N Oq wO 7 Li
O u 0
W E �w ro .« v u a c �„ E a o o c U
axu, p c a m d Y ti a E a N F a a
z . V u U ro V O un N O u N w B
w'
JNC ya
ZJ a L
H_
k�w
w !'
3�
j
T
�` _ `•
W
o • � O V F `•♦
� W Q
3 N m
I N J O
U
• O w < Z w
cG •-= J U ? ••
U mi
N N
O z Oom= m Li
I m M m p m A
•
N % r
a�a
LL
v `bpd,
I O W Q Z ~ J6 O v m t
J O`n
6
U �
n a
Y _
w • � � U � x
O D ��,• /•
O• O W 6
W a
r ¢ 4 aQ ♦ �i
• d m 4m "GO
avow 73en
J
6
J� p
• R, 8
I / N
Q
w <
I �w" w
a.
s� 3i e lsy3ln,�" �-
o-
1
O
F
z loo,
r •��
NE IN. d. O{fn!
A t� �en
� a
U r�
W z 3�
ti q �
gz
"t ( 1 O �So
chcnlri M �rF �� a3
cc••hh �ollii u� cfi o� m -
F e'r
F-
A..
Vy �
o
CG Aknim cn v� vh v� r t� t� M .. oy •� a `° i
to
CA
¢ v �
F as
eu 9 do
f b v m C
T N
a eE ti
R N 1* W M v1 O, ,� �O
t c E
• z � Adm � a
z
' rq g C L
=
' N N
3 cc L
°� n v
.L" J, �x n z°
' O m
Fti
E
W •3 ^ . �? o
C A
v a
3 2 v c v a>
M W �•� y ��
G�1 .t+ m _ L O
A I I I I I oil a u °p c
o
1 z
A zz
E' ai •• �' ti . Y N m
q d
M y i Oil ^_
y W
o ,
tnQ A z
s c v m m
F 6 z ti,v�PN`. ='f O„ =1300 �i+S� oo N n
c o Y yN
CL :-�� u e d a o•
y� c ro y c a u
ay o o y
l mss k
CA 0
i
W Q v yk- v� o
Z c `m O.. m] c v0.. o � _°4 v7 C F U ZW m F' LL F >? U
t,oL ee Cr O W i
RM
1
1 z
• o
F
1 a
U
i A
U ,F N u
z - o
x
A o 3
w ai
� u
Q' ;y
y
1 �N
r� F t t t A Q F U
p°DiM0 E
a
E
F id u
O u s
d J u N
1 ut
Z h U
Z G �
1 a t CO
eC d
G ti 7
1
1 7 Y N tz N w
a* E u E E u mow^
O N Y h b ti v y 9 Y � Q c�C v �
1 u o u C 1 n o a u u
cn
1 W a
Z a
O
io F
1 z Z Z
1
1 0
1
WQ
ri. rq NM M to
cq , a
eq en
0 E
W:R 'S. 0 E
j u 0 w .1 v u
Ln cn �n
3
t I I
o
z
�o
F
a
W
A
Gy F 3
tic? bQ^' °Q6iaQ¢ �t
v� z
o k J �z�. a W
M A 3 a
Ln
ai
� U
U U
W � w
Mo 3p` fi v
E, W 'o M er oo.
0
.
Q p " r • °- �o
W O m M
y
O � o0 o �°
' W
W z a a .
* op B:'�'�''¢ e G
r r
A z
a,
C 0 U cC7c
tz
1 F U N
µU. y H h q
E 0 c°'ia. O O —W ' F s0. O F
DO
z o
o
F a
d,
e
a
x a
o �
^a u C,
o ' 2 cl
O .x '-I a ,-+ N M .b "'o .p . 'F1 O 'T1' C
P4 w0 w w w w N ;a ¢ °'° a
r--, o ! O' O F-I V .., D u u D.
a ny
;'• -•II • F, w A Il, q W W W W � ��'' u 0 q) "k ❑
[ F-1
P. P_ a a a a C " 4 a " U� aa..7 fll.a o
C
y O
� I _
r `
N O W¢ Z W Q. Z. \ \ \\
O � J
o
U iU / 1 11
/ r = a H
I �/SL'JI �' O O C7 oD 7
1
I
1 , ,
1 /
I N F
I 7CMZ /ON¢H
OOIn J� wu,2 \
Cd
I W O
Z �
Ooh m
>> a
a
= Q Q I N O I W Q Z
wo
U) O / 0
0O I ODQZ O��
%J U I I `
1 �
d �1
N J Wm ZQ T
� �Q2 faro
e O4 O %
w m o I U
m 1 I c{ —
0 �
lux
- \ O
j I I I ti v
I I I I a v 7 q 0
I v U
111 II` I I U � I \ \ p w P" 5
p Q u .-.
_ r U N I I v N 2 b U U
_ U I i \\ r`+ V O y v • � J LJ
II r v 'b V h A v
I g d u ,y w P. p
w w W w
I \\ � O
U n
I I H cl -00 a "
I
I B
o q°� a O � v
to C ti
B P+ N y U f" E _
W
v Qi ^ JS
v N w o.�
�.a ga, pgnp 8
o y
:�t
w P4 C �� O
.� a .-+ N M ' .p
I F rrl CJ W�j W W W W of c��a°'
W tl a o H o v o• O„ bo
W 04 P- o. P. a. a a" v�.� a u < P...a� .9 o u
to
h
o O
t.
U N
♦ ----- - - - - -- --��� h- cu
cu
o U� O o
�a a
(�
w WQZ �i `\ I
( 4 3 o
_ \
I I O O O
i co =��
I I , d �♦
I N fn W
1
� - N r •b
I I M Orn ♦ < z
S
.O O ��n c
A.
�D♦ �
co
w? 1 I 1 Q I
w O
OU~ U 11 N I E
WQ
O �v�o ` H 0
I I
Q v 1
a
\ O n
ODOR
W a \ L
nN� a
O
cq
CIA
cs
hP.� o vo u v
I W \ y P.
.17b v ti N
O H v O v
\ y n 0
/ Y N
v o I w
v
\N N U .p U
En
V
b 3 D u
/ II
O gg t
day o 5
O y v P 41 Y
�7 O Pi ti u 8
z.+f`i Ki V 4 .0 OP. ® o
wpm m m m m m m m m m m MAN
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1 3.3 REVISIONS/EDITS BASED ON INFORMAL CITY
STAFF COMMENTS
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
v ' b ! a O° O° V° O b N° - 'V ° ° .V O a0 H 'V C
W V q Q O O fi ~
Q S O NC O O & OC y.� u� us OV p
W W u� u u C o Oy° O� wal
402 o c O o V c V c V,.
r � C V W V'.a C'� C'� ,y
L' p .4 '.'' ° ' 7 .0 c 'O P 'b q 'u a
u O ❑ q _
x Wg W W v d C4 P4 v U
4 z y C
W O O O O O O O O O O O O
i
3 JN 4
"Y $
x
ti
p ¢ Z
` m
O �u
t-
.
O
� N fA ,� �• N V
� Q Z
r u> >QZ
N Y
1� ��� O y LL � ••
qp
m : J ° ba
O
I U
0 , —
� Q Z
O
I d
6
6 .
� m 1
I ! 01
Y N
O U � o � E'_° �•
0 S ice
�•�••••�•••••••••••••••••••• �y ••••• ° °
•• • y J C h
avoa zaaA •�•••
� u
i ••• • • f a Q °[° a
• /> C v w
i � •• .' v .L O 'aCi
V U U ••�, C N u
r u
]W � `�♦ Op u O'p
i W�� .• � a° g
N '' •:• Y � O N
v O r
•\• .9 u 0
P4 m
`• 9 t
•� v .0 0
v
�—
z� _
v
b N °4 2 V' x � - 2 V b O b M
►I fi {� v "' � vv ^ `N r ^ `� o x o ,i, m v v �
W o ❑ 4 O O H Q)
° j is �' ro 0 0 q ff+ « u'S u' O V C SC a
uZ 'u 'i. 5 u u C o °�° °_° u W
o a v Y �_ w as as v
r by
cl
P4 a
Eg-
N
° v
r yay J J
_ C
a S a (F) S s a O
CIO
fr
Cd
u
s.
v
O
Ewa
IO
• O Q= J u W Q
U n
W • J y Z5
_u
r
• U r,
Z � = Q Z • U
U V • f �
1� N ..�
N
N U F
m w �
(n QFU •�
W m M 0
I
I 2 1
O _ W QZ • 1 _
J O 3 p N
O w Q Z
I 2 O = O j6Z i.L OJ ,
n
6
f O1 nuY
I N O � ./•
O �•
� W of e ♦ ma y $ ,
W y b
r•�
• •• o •
I I
•
o C
•
• v
000 00600000 60 %
I : • i V v R. C `Jv
1
\�
w
• O L � a�.
O j w¢ % f u .o
F v p
F' 8. O CJ
+ v
O ` ♦r�� -0 T
W
L. It
s
u
•\, • C _ C ro
31 •�• .... a ti .v A w
S! b1 Sb31Nl •� v • = � • l v ° VU)
C ' O �+
O F� ❑ u °�'' W
a—
r �r r. r r ■� r .■� � r r r r rr r rig +�
1
HARVESTON EIR 3.0 PROJECT DESC RIPTION
• Provide for necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate the demands of new 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 and zone ch�ait
' • 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
Approval of Harveston Specific Plan a d z6 han gg
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
P9199M 162011EWI\ PROIDESCRTMON. DOC 3 -27
i
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
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 Gertrudis 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
Gertrudis 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 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 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 (Lower), 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).
Addrtiovally ",sea' was'en'3isidne'd. for` urban ^landiises ,urider. "ttie'Count S thwest +P an
( SWAD I
J
P:\1"8%N16201\EUZU.I LAND USE DDC 5 -3
q ❑ - - - u - 09 -❑ o , c
ti Z N N O M O 'r r1 M oo P a 'b u« w O 'b
(�O T 1 r O u1 O V M v 7 p oa 0v ❑ O
� •��. V Q N N U1 w� v v u pd v R. •..
� � W vv �d N . � V � A L �� + � v • b.0 H M N j
� ❑ Q
❑ O
1-4 y u O u O y y
� LOO � N b .� � O m � h m 0 ❑ O W
'u • y a N '' N 09'37 c "O
a a E K H °� a" C ° ❑" - o ❑ Cd
.°.o V9 a
u w n �. E _D E u m v u v, ao v Y v, /
W N 7 u U M U .°-i m ti N :3 N N (d
w N :I ° Q 04 ❑ u , c a
O v 'D itl u u ❑ v y v .� ."J Cd
■ N v £. m G> O fi. i-.i a+ N A v w v N ❑ v W
■ 'O 7 p u M u O N ti b :n u rL4 u C
,.❑ ❑ • b N ❑ W w N
N a b C .� v p ti❑> "[.� u u w N W ih
N O v O v u Q. ❑ v 0 .❑ C M'G u u V
Q a x Z z O a F v a
() a ❑ •HC7a w
�.� k
I �.. W
I �
0
z ■ � d •
O ■ `
d
a d`
- 1
I � 1
tp
■ o �
rn
A 1
W
i ' S•
N Ole
�I W
� H d ♦♦
U ■ p W
E
■ p q l -� N
�.,�
■'`. ■_� ■`. '
`..
r mOm r r r r r r r
w u w u« .13 0 u v« v .a u w E
U) 0 o aoo .n r o o a = v� o o v v "� Yw �b� o
3 �. a »v•v c c u •.
�, }� (( N O O �O M N M N OD �• w t pp ° " is " 7 u u .0 u . =" G ,2 Cd
in H O\ ,' 7 Gp . d �+ u u Opw C N .[ .y Q
V� "-1 u C a p v u .q
V W U O n a n 3 a a. a c ` s is u v 4J
F• A Y
by s Y Y c
x Z y V3 Cw a u u� "��� Yriv v
a� C _ p u v .G u •a ' a u
bo
o x F a ° c v y u n t w m u p
c
o o u u w •° K w o u c N
K N E ° h Y v u g" Y B v N H W U n' A CL
u u u w u u Y v .E .M
w aNi E o u a y ° ° " 40u U mu a« A c c
ci u N v ❑ n U u u ° .u+ n E .� H^ u u u Ci
CL 0 ro❑ v O O u '. dq o
u m u u 0 w > u° A p n« 7�•�
c v vi 9 j a c 0 6 v o o
■ •o Q' u ` u °
■ m u u u O O O«
X69 a '.7 w y , C N 4 Y C u n r 0 V
ayi B u ° fl O 'Y w n. x v x n c.r o y F v« v c e c o 'a b
.°] x Z 2 n O C F °- * o u❑ > c; °^ v^ w L O' E
° '• • 'u C 7 u u 0 U U w u)
'9 W' ° N v N P N p V (] O O
a.
�avaraau�aalsnuw,• °wts�xa O
04 0
. z �
a
w
a
0
� r
o �
U • ,
• v•
I
I rte.
r ,r
W
�••� it
I r
I 1
yyy
n
' l 1
w S •.J
-=
�.. Soo
avo8 Z3NA
4b y
. [ s
` fV
Sl31b1gN31Nl .;_
�' V
' 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
HARVESTON EIR 5.1 LAND USE 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 enhance'ment.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
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:
' • 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 e xisting
r
• service commercial would be zoned Light Industrial ( The zone hange fo the wo out= parc'6lv �
the:areai noitlirofr thzis ting� ° " , erviceScommercial a e�covered'db uittiate zon
' PA199WN MOIEMR .1 -LAND USE.DOC 5 -11
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
lane. Curbside parking shall not generally be provided along the Loop Access Road except where
t 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
Sit "
f ri
proposed Harveston 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:\ 1998 \8NIQOITIRS.3- TRANSP CIRCULATION.DOC 5 -75
S
� 0
�W wo.
' � N
a � v
C W
AM
Za 11�( lif J 11ir
t
Ix
p
c� o
p3
' a
u
v
p v
W �+
Z b
Z a Z w v
Z O
Z Z Z
>0 z
� F w
a3 �
cd
C
Z �
O
Wo 111( J if J 11ir
W �
C �
C O
LL
S d
� O
m C
C pi
C N
' � C
Z _ N
N' c : O
E E E c
Q CQ OD o 0 1� N
C L 6
y C I Q 7 ' N Z W E Q OC N
L
o t� i
i z z z
• p O C
' \i g
5
0
_n
fi N
cd
9
u
C : rn / 1 O ,•—
CL Cc
a o
S 3 o G
° c3 0 Z
U
U
O i
W G C
�
Z M-i
W W
0 u
Z 6 z z z ^ y
W z z z
� z
00 0
0
3 Cd
z C/)
0
' z W w W
_ z z z
z z zz z
Z
u
z
5 0 m
o c
' 0
� L
0 0
m
c m
p O D c a
H y = N p N L E m
L N N N N o m
H W f W C W O >
O W 9 V W C V V k W u m 1 O
a0 m �0 0�
Q c o E'a a
ca m a It ca
0 i 6
Z u _ N z O a p
u V Z = ? ti
O Q D u — tl
Q
' O••i
w o
:=
oM ctl
N
O
H F
Z
cW Q Y
G 11 III`Il ) I I` �
o — -
' Z O i
D � O
0 y
W
W
Z 0 O
Z IL W W W V
' Z a z z z O
W f O O O O
g0 z z = z
W
0 O
CL3 Cd
Cd
IO
z 'n
0
z� W W W
P LL O O O
X Z z z z
W V
W
Z
C
' d o
LL
� R
m d
C d�
C y
3 E n
� o E o
z �_C N ^W C d O
0 W \ ^ ? d p
E E
y f C f U y$ y d t 1 6
C y N y W y y y F.2
~ Q n Q Q a Q O U d U
Q Z .t Q i
W
Z Z y Z 2 i
t ® �
O $ M rl
cD --1 LO
C
xW 4t W°o
N
U
�O C
°J J1 !
N t� IA
Zo 1(
1 - -
O a �.
� _ C
� = O
Q3 u
v
4
Y
o�
W "b
Z O b
Za z z z v
WO w
OP O
a 3 ad
f Cd
E C
z
O
m
t7 �
z� z z z
LL O Z Z
z z
W V
W
Q C °
.J ° O
LL
� L
O �
m �
C _@
C ° 0 O
N
z V �V �C V C Q
G d p 0 O O Q d
J W W E
y� W j C N J W V y W U V Q C ✓+
z c�i Z U= tC ^ Ye o } $ +
z z z z
' 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 DIE 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.
Proiect 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
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 Pro'ect %
' 1 Winchester Rd @ (1) Add EB Right Turn Lane
Jefferson Ave (2) Add NB Right Turn Lane (Dual Right)
(3) AddaSo ' uthb d Left 16%
N Turn Lane
(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 Lane to 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) Modify Signal to Provide NB Right Turn Overlap Phase 42%
(3) Add EB Left Turn Lane (Dual
10 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd @ (1) Add WB Left Turn Lane (Dual)
1 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) Modify - ;i6 g l aiiC SShoed
T� hiou d Ri n Ta e �-
Margarita Rd (2) Modify NB Through Lane to Shared Through and Left Turn 43 %
Lane
i e 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
(4 Xdd'EBRi'tit?Ta &lane
' P:\19 WN16201TIR� 3l SP CIRCU AMN.DDC 5 -82
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.
' L 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.
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— Sehedulingreeeipt of eenstmetien materials to non peak perieds (i.e., 7:' —x—&30 AM
..tea n nR7-
mx .- .•r... .*..s,-.
A Avotd schedulmg receipt - ion ".dutmgEp tra hdurs (t.e� 7F30¢ t� 8;30
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.
l 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:\199NN16201TIt .CA QUA DO 5 -102
W
U
• Z
a
U
W
O
7
w
r
h c. c a o c o g �t
v u� o
'Z;3 s.4 0 c a u ❑ 3
1 a 3 r E E a.o y y w
o ° c
0
u''_
ti a v c b ro E a` u £ c� yD ° 3 u
3 • o 'o o �'_ a c 0 > v c c " F o .a ° . y > p a p
G
_ < O o a o °�' u 9Lz w •o o`n`e u na > y • c `� ' 'c c o '"' _ m" i g
a) N :?
o� oou�ca�cc ❑ E E E5 = F�,
•� "° c�u `° u '5 h u •� •o o e E o o
o Q' c o c y c c�? h e >, c o
-tD z;3 y ° c nn'E c u w
o
N u d, On O O Q > > O O h cJ bL 'O ❑,..
a ]E oao o ^ua �ov' o�ov
pa •�• 0 d p y CIO N 0 0 0.0 E .G b .� c �. > p
c0 L •= ca N C O ,Q •O N
i o
F^ U x O o h> ° v C E u y3¢0. U c o
Q Q w n •-
' a
F
U
w
F
U
P
r
O
z
0
a
� a
w z
O O
O F
C7 ..
W
F .7
a 0 ,
U
a
1
0
� }E
\ u a
V
O c
C4 a z
Q m
j
Q mW O E b E S
C4 U
z m
H
m
o a o 0 0
L . C � 0 y �� a v . .a O N
Z . s
v E .E u E 9 t il l o O N v E v o U u
d� u° ° c a a 9 v .�'
u c u
°c2c�o �a..GU O"c g ° >': „bo' o o�° c 'yr�°°v
i .Q ° m i .E Q o7 U � Fcl a ' � • 4� W V d 9 � ° o .E � c. �:
z O O
c
a o 5UO
C a
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
uses to encourage the provision of park and ride facilities.
A 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
s all may include: solar or low-emission water heaters, selaf reaf tiles, energy efficient appliances,
dual paned windows, low pressure sodium parking lights, y mclude.solazrroof leers 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 I 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,
PM 10 and ROC. The daily exceedance of the thresholds for CO, NOx, PM 10 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 I I 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 I 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 11 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.
P119 MN 1620116IX�.4AIR.QUA DO 5 -103
U fl u
a
_ c
u
u
�n w pp G p
O . p ti
O N� C v N 'O L T a G •� F
CL
.� bap N C y 'd M D O= M
E U =
° G o? o
3 T y$= s o u o L E°
L 'D O
� C O h
� ..
Eo A o� c
o
a i c C h p o, M b E_ 3
E u 0
T.= i vv a� T c
N >; u p c ou to a
� 9 I Sr c calo E o` N' u ° c � °� �' O c.5 �a u
W o° EEI a o ^ " ao u WQ° °? 3
d L.Ew Qrn o'er Q COU Q o v°ro a N
1 a
� UJ N
F
U
W
O y >
p� u U t
v> > y
E u
= v
U 0. v
u
' F s
s �
R
= u �
a
H a a� 3 E o CCCF
O
Y E
} u a
m � _
V
F
EZ a
O O C U U
Z v c> a> c �: E
F mz
y
v .E u v $
.c v c . `o
C4 T E m m >, E 5 w E c v ' E
`� m E „°_' ? v v
��II UF6,hv] UFaE -v] UFa. E a] uF-92 U[=a' n n
/y
Y T
U G (n N
Ln
d v 2 b a9i u v a =d o .o a Z
, av aac as as anc ��U
F
r. m
m v
z
p z a c a x a
a o 0 0 0 0
HN
`o o .o
p h '" v.2 s 3,E � aJ m ova
re m E �a E
r a u .` ° ° c E
v
o E u o c 3 Cp eu m u `v o E o O° c o 'c
U O C d N 9� . O U❑
o U
u o a E
E E E t az c.c u w'
°325 °3 ° co > o o s� � °c'°�d u2o
o .v a L .. m
06 o
F o o o
u
r
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
• HARVESTON EIR 5.5 NOISE
r
Substantial perimeter walls separating rear yards from the roadway right -of -way along Date
Street are anticipated to be necessary . Thesvtstble° "cb4il�heighr shall�be, ii i'�ted o (6) fee
however a berm /wallzco
mbtnation or
additional setb ackishall #be'�permttted�as o meth
n t.r.lirs'W$ex`3� s •s'�tR r.""•'tEz# .T+Ghas =a
for<+ notse�standard Date I cise wall geometncs shall be determined
once exact setbacks and building pad grades are established.
Moderately upgrading window treatments shall be necessary along Date Street in upstairs
bedrooms closest to the roadway. Minor acoustical upgrades shall be needed along Margarita or
r Ynez beyond simply closing windows to shut out roadway noise. The building code requires that
supplemental fresh air ventilation be provided in rooms where window closure for traffic noise
protection is necessary. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation shall be conducted in a
r supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filed with the appropriate
agency.
' 5.5.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The project noise impact study indicated that off -site noise impacts will be individually and cumulatively
less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure 4 and the rear yard perimeter protection for
usable outdoor space (yard, patio, spa, etc.) for proposed homes along Date Street, Ynez Road, and
Margarita Road will reduce the impacts to less than significant. In addition, implementation of mitigation
measures 1 -3 listed above, for temporary noise impacts emanating from construction activities, will
reduce the short -term impacts to a level of less than significant. Lastly, the noise from the French Valley
Airport is considered to be less than significant,
r
r
r
r
r
r
' P1199A\ANI6201TM@65- NOISRDDC 5 -120
z
U — c
y <a
s
z 3
o E ° -
' - c
u
w �•
.a a o
. Li: hw .N U V - E E G F Z, u a u r`s. iU vU T� u' >O` u x.� s o �a'i V.N `°
U y a c
a�i c aCO E � � o u � L � -0 -'> c u •o
s o• _ a'o �b oa o u F ° u c °u a
o ay''o u
o 'a t N a c 3 s c^ c ❑ ocn rim o�� o R E .L >> z� � °�
4 ac a° >oo Ly E o o��.E a ° u °o c o
w Ua u
D•n
.c v = :o " u a M w tip.,. 0 my � � o Q -
° c ° ° u s
z a tin• -' T'� � u 3 �`cirya
s$
o ... 1 , on O
tz onv c m c ti)
u .= c
F ¢ ¢ ��� ° c ° °- a'� a' Ca ° � . �i a R >
3
u u u u a� 0 um— b"— u G acns s v •o E y 'o " a
C�9 t h O F on.�, �' t u G V E O._ Off, `�. ��.,
0 c E o o a� 0 u._' ^.0 s 3t O ah �� o tintino
Q 0
c. p c ,� c uo_o u Em s ac u en's 3 c>
m o a ou f E.� FO
o g
v tin a ° 0 G c a o
o a u c a u u o a Ru
a' sm E 43ZQc�susoo
N —s u F
, urow•o "s m �•a5�''3,���.. uae . h u E 3 .. �,
u Ku u cL r tinu uy ya> , uhuF t`
am n 0 ° o "ow ow' v W I S E c —� a u u a� aE r.
�¢ E 'c ° c 0 a'C F c o �� �i b u o y o L E'o o a cv
'.- �'?.mi
a
� � v
U
W
U � •L
c
° R
a�
1 u
O E
0
O �
1 a
EQ
tin
_ o
O d _ >1
FV a�b
U � b
z F oa
Z
U F
V �
0.a U = L)
z
OF a � n u.. UF -ram
z o
a o
m r
z F
a s o 0 u
00 0.' > > a
x o 0 0
ma E 4 9
�' up, u.. u co�a Eu ��tA o o c c
�pa
O p `= E _ O 9 L L v a tr VH J° v u m y W A
?, a'a Q, " A v c Z A (E;G! C "+ u '� o s
T aNp`uL v�?osn oUo i. `�� °O '` tl x
°
UZ
Lu L
� c s p . = 9 u
m `� c 3i.d� 3 v `�'- ?: c
z`o pLA 0 yEaZ u�� yCl'uv °' �Y m =
c o u U 5
0, o E =z ° �,., °
,
u y c o y . .�.� E
Eo c-2 _o E
? V ro � ° u� - n c :; °c to u
c' "'c Jc c> - no r m - S " 0 0U °'E� �"_ �N" a >< = o c�r°+ e°��
N m m c 3 u 6° , m y u u u o u o
U
Q E mo^c y� Q a Q
N raj �
v�
o
Z g .E d
f
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
• HARVESTON EIR 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
t 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 (see Mtttgao5n Meast es 3 tand "4
below), and such other provisions ( see'ytiti gati o " n'" Measures5 below 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 [Fhe d ve eloper s f6 ins aalla4o n!of+theFe fle litiese d an
entity (i.e., Cit of,Temecula o� property owner) 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
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
1 obtain information on programs from and coordinate with the City's Community Services
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 I through 3 will reduce the project's contribution to
potential cumulative drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts to a level less than significant.
Pi 199MN 1620 IUR�.]- FIYDRO.DO 5 -147
w =
R
Z �
z 3 v
- c
R V
N L L 0 L=
' m y1 v
C O ^ R c c N C= .w O �
-o Rw ouu c3 , n a = cn
rois = m _
�:: d yam' s'$
v anoU a� y E W m u Q v v s R
_ L G o y w J5 N u y u th c€ y w o> u c,-
n c 6660 E n 0° $ s= c 0 p CO D o E o
Q °° " c ° p o o N o ° .o e RR ° ao 'o = o '� � ° a
W - i N .9 Q R ° ^�. ._ G = U i G' = C b-fi'C
x °? o Y a R c R Q w u 3 y •� . s .E c t
. pa , v °� > h = ` c e '- b .a`� a�
Q R R p L c C7 • u o o a ' R CL
° a m e c c 3> c t c u 3 �° E ° ,3'
- u u ° n n b a R v 0. a u " u R nK
C c c u c W u y - CL Q) > V r u c
C C m w Qa L Ri
on R ti u u Z E E E R b p p 3
w o ,_.N E.? o ° 0 u p .c o o t� o
ca N b o c R 0.1 = ,o o c E p p -• C) 2 Q F .0 O ie V •'� h> 'C U O a Q a = 4) 0 C 0 m m ." yy II L' N
F C a ass0ad u a'o mavocn au 0..'v Z W CL 4YrW mg' h i ota:
F
U
' w
°a a.
� U
U U
' a cn
r
4 � C
°R. R
O N = CQ
7 =
C7 �
Q
A p G a b
' F y
C7 xF.� cc
W
u
z
U
v1
O
W
W
a 0 a
O C G h a <tl b F N t w= tC m= b b c r O
_ u Q o u c u #z! 5 - u M o f
CQ
8. ° 2� 5=40 m � a ?: 3 c u E o "a s
0o u h v y w <� u > o
m C " N s O . p + O ._.Q �' O p .0 E G ip
' ❑ w °a u y 3 E tis o u' c'a� °a Es y c a F
s ❑ p c
to
c E uu
a �� o a g u u a a i as cw�S ° o c' tu
" E°
t U a u y u � y b 'u a? a E u .0 u ° ° t ° a
' O m u b ro u ti 3
x z a o �.L `a = To o a9 `•�� —" o U ma �= tia u C °p
H O�ac.G�w"j�r°3y� °N�o Eca n—°
O E u E ❑ c¢ G m r C .E O ' s a� '�
< y o c
a m o t w E E
�o Y> o u 0
a s s ° o
c y E? a o c o�a� u p m E u �a
L � ao .n a U ° ° oa' = v 0
u c o`.^ =$° c —' c'y.N
N ❑ ro o a o
W v c° E° -o� 3 c Pa ° c N r Q • c o
a s'L v �n y°°° a •� �p.c a o
F c s c 8 a x o n w c •� o .o
F a U ° u > 5° c Q U) o u E n. v o n � a ' ol E U 3 2 A�
0.
F
U
1 W
C °+
C. U
F
a O
io � F
m O
O U
O W
C7
a
a�
A
c�
F O
U
x
x
_o
� U F
UQ� �
C.7
m 0 L L
W O O O
�a
' O m Z Y Y Y
' O o
4.y _ U E c "4
a C `° v =°-d me EG' o m�
h� n c .. u E o
r ri Z5a � n`3�a
m
' yF
S a o 0 0
00
CC y v E `v eu y '> a .E a •axy n n c_ o o y N u N ._ a�.� v
utOucL 9 c c j oa y�'c �:�v �vc - ° uQ ��s
� t "� �� .uJ E � a c 9 °° c y � �� o `d '° �>.. == v t ❑ .°. ° .. '-° v u d � o
ro p c v L w o. E WE
c cn
m o..�U °-� °.`= c�. ��dv -E yo} °'Eo`a>-$ ❑�A °�'va 3°
O n c -5
Z 9 Z = O N 9 b�➢ T 0 -j b➢ p U C 9 41 3 v v CC U .v. N u V N m 6. �YC�tp�Li ce�i
a0 >. Z • a ` � L !] O ag n 0] T C� v C C= C O
24 5 O da 30I =
� to E ?:
V Z 3 0 o d
_ y Z..
1 m v u E'o v _� 9 ocE vn'
v u n u v U
03 u�su,u yro3 '�>,ao U;P.i u. o.
S o a'Cut
N 'Z ��p t9 mE �o�� m.v v�TO Lv�Tn ap
d a m> a yv
- ° E p a✓ o. o g a .nl 8� c a c � c s c o o p :9� [ g . : �
EEuvnEnw °€ °
C1
N r1
' Z W
n o
1 ° -
1
• H
a
�
�j
�'O, hoO D\m iD [�Q�N 0,�000OONOON op _M .y N
SO �D O
�..I V] � 0000000000 O...p00000. 0.0 lL':(
Q ° a VN�c Ott ^CIO, N8
Fy U ��" ��O c N Ov�ia�+ ��000 S 8 0 . N 'V N
z"
bo
a
C U� ^ 00 o 000o o0o o
�C7ON Ooo [� vi oo OCR O 00000 �Q � +
' V �O op N ^ �D M V1 N '7 N 7 0 — � •--� M � � Ci
O
a Vol
00000000000 O in O O ,a
i §ii z :S Q :Eia vt
N N y w a 3
F w E UP
o Q h E yy
M G
w h N C { b
0 m � CD a N m o, 0 I uu YG !C � � C,
F a�0000000 oog n m o �!
Q g;; g
t
. 00
c• " Oy '
E"e�'apaU555�5,7QUUUUUOV.._•U 7 .�� �
�FagG]OggqpOqL]p, 9 m d� 4m
a N O o N W 0 C i (V O j O
COO N o d ''6 . 'S vo
__ I yy
I..I I ^ N .--� . .� ^ N ^ E � 0.. �' � °� P.. i� � 1� � O G 3 Q' a �y' 7Tl'Oj'�yi
m�R- c
l
o w o
C/] 0 ^NMI V1 �o t�aorn N i= M W Z WY g
z
Q �
' x
d
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
• HARVESTON EIR 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
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 wilt be
required to provide a ...aaal,. heal and an elementary school site or payment of fees o a
or -, --•
' mtd dle.sclioolrsite yadd%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
P: \199MSN16201�Mf .9 -PSU.D 5 -177
W
U
z
a
U
' Z
U
w
O
W
W
.a
1 c
0
z c � � •o � s u S �`, v' u u p 'o � �
�.. ' U S G L
7 0 .� 3° c Q E b ' E ° . o u
e E ti y ,° ° ❑ a u a'3 N= o ° E � A u o v
c.�.b � a. w a u 3 o y �.yuc' u
a z o o o o N E a d o ° o >�� o s u 4
O h o o w u
b E `" O w
cu °° o f •o E p° E o 0 o L s 0 a
a F c c o >. u E 0.° u E u .E a E
o u o am ❑ c ' •n. y
b _ _
N 4: ' O N y N G 2 O j O w N O "•
w n O o E Q c u o Q E >
, rn 3 LEj EL n, o vb ofm o o h o co N
F V . O L V •� b0 y U N r s y V Q' �O G N
a 0 F Q n w a �€ F ti v y v v
0. u
u
cn
r
F
U
W
O w
c.
6a u
cn
O
F
L) U
W. w
z
o d
F
1 a �
u z
w �
A w
� U
a >
o a
v w
w con
1 �
v �
z
0
U F
F z u �
w �
V G a o0
w
ai y O o� o f
s `
�zy S G Q •o c �
F m
O O a o u
�� UFc °O �UaO F »rnGUFm
3 _ _
m } L
a
O N y h C O y d Ov0 O .v. 9 G C u OvD C O u v R_I N
lYi
> u E
o.E'Q,
2 E E
6.0 o �
a
. 3 m v r o d 3 o s E v t °- ,� L E .°-„ , !v h `o
c .° '� 9 c a 6n 'u 'a h a .E �
� v` 3 �� v c c a c x
c7 �va. =OA '° ayy'_ c�aR y;v o v
u u '� = 2 u c E u `o °' °' `• dj c
h v ° " 3
� e
o
F
vl NI u C N U
�U 03
'°
r
9
w c
y u u
�
5)|
0
® #&
Z :
/ ®
4 . .
�� .
2 f e
� k � }) \/)
j {;f r;)
eBeeE
2 `
Q :
�
1
1
APPENDIX Al
Resolution Number 91 -5 -8, Board of Directors of Rancho
California Water District
1
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -5-8
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA
' WATER DISTRICT', RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A WATER
CONSERVATION PROGRAM AND
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2 -3
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Rancho California Water District is concerned
about the possibility of a general water supply shortage, inadequate aqueduct capacity, and
the prospect of a major disaster affecting distribution facilities;
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Rancho California Water District, in order
to meet the demands of its customers in the event of a shortage, deem it necessary to
establish water conservation guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the. Board of Directors of Rancho California Water District
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER as follows:
Sectio Amend Resolution No. 91 -2 -3 . This resolution hereby amends
Resolution No. 91 -2 -3, adopted February 8, 1991.
Section Z Stage I - Normal Condition (The District is able to meet the water
demands of its customers in the immediate future.)
1. When the General Manager has declared that the District's water supply is in a
"Normal Condition," customers are requested to use water wisely and to practice
water conservation measures so that water is not wasted.
2 Customers are to avoid use of water in a manner that creates runoff or drainage onto
adjacent properties or onto public or private roadways.
3. Water waste is a violation of California Law and District Regulations at my time.
Refer to Ordinance No. 8948 -1, as amended by Ordinance No. 91.1.2.
Section 3 . Stage I1- Water Alen (There is a probability that the District will
not be able to meet all of the water demands of is customers.)
1. Parks, school grounds, and golf courses are to be watered at night only.
2 Lawns and landscaping are to be watered after 6:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m.
3. Driveways, parking lots and other paved surfaces are not to be washed with water.
4. Private vehicles are to be washed with a bucket; hoses must have positive shut off
nozzles.
1
5. Commercial car washes must recycle water.
6. Restaurant customers are to receive water only upon request.
7• A limited number of fire hydrant construction meters will be issued by the District.
Applicant must present current, valid grading or building permit.
8. Livestock or animals may be watered at any time.
9. Decorative ponds, golf course water hazards which are not an integral pan of the
permanent irrigation or fire protection system, fountains and other waterscape
features are not to be filled. Fountain pumps must remain off to minimize
evaporation.
Section 4 . Stage Ill • Water Warning (The District is not able to meet all of the
water demands of its customers).
I. Parks are to be watered at night no more than two times per week.
' 2. School grounds are to be watered at night no more than two times per week.
3. Golf courses, greens and tees only, are to be watered at night. Fairways may be
watered on alternate days at night.
4. Lawns and landscaping are to be watered no more than two times per week after
6:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m.
S. Restaurant customers arc to receive water only upon request using disposable cups.
6. Driveways, parking lots, or other paved surfaces are not to be washed with water.
r 7. Swimming pools are not to be filled.
■ 8. Commercial car washes must recycle water.
9. New Ere hydrant construction meters will not be issued by the District
10. Water service through fire hydrant construction meters for grading or other
construction is to be used after 5:00 pm. and before 10:00 am.
1 11. Agricultural customers are to use wa ter on alternate days, only.
12. Commercial nurseries are to use water only on alternate days between 6:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m.
13. Livestock or animals may be watered at any time.
-2-
1 -
r
r
Section 5 . Sta¢e IV - Water Emerge (A major deficiency of any supply or
failure of a distribution facility is declared.)
1. Lawns and landscaping are not to be watered.
' 2. Parks, school grounds and golf course fairways are to be watered with reclaimed
water, if available, or not at all. Golf course greens and tees may be watered only
on alternate nights.
3. Driveways, parking lots, or other paved surfaces are not to be washed.
4. Commercial car washes using recycled or reclaimed water are to be used for washing
vehicles. Consumption of District water for this use must be reduced to 50% of
average consumption during the prior year.
5. Restaurant customers are to receive water only upon request, using disposable cups.
6. Swimming pools are not to be filled.
7. New fire hydrant construction meters wr7l not be issued by the District.
& Water service through fire hydrant construction meters will not be available by the
District
9• Permanent orchard crop irrigation is to be limited to no more than two times per
week. In the event of a temporary service outage, agricultural irrigation is to be
discontinued.
10. Other agricultural and commercial nursery irrigation is to be discontinued.
11. Livestock or animals may be watered at any time.
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 17th day of May.
I
Ralph K Daily, President of the
Board of Directors of the
ATTEST: Rancho California Water District
Linda M. Pregoso, Secretary of the
Board of Directors of the
I Rancho California Water District
_3_
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
1, LINDA M. FREGOSO, Secretary of the Board of Directors of Rancho California
' Water District, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy
of Resolution No. 91 -5-8 of said Board, and that the same has not been amended or
repealed.
' DATED: May 17, 1991
Linda M. Freg Secretary of the
Board of Directors of the
Rancho California Water District
[SEAL]
ie
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
I, LINDA M. FREGOSO, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Rancho
California Water District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 91.5.8 was
duly adopted by the Board of Directors of said District at an adjourned regular meeting
thereof held on the 17th day of May, 1991, and that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES: DIRECTORS: Daily, Darby, Ko, Kulberg, Silla, Steffey
NOES: DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: DIRECTORS: Minkler
ABSTAIN: DIRECTORS: None
u.1rl �i�c�10
Linda M Fregcno, ' Secretary of the
Board of Directors of the
Rancho California Water District
(SEAL) .
1
APPENDIX A2
US Fish and Wildlife Service Correspondence, dated
September 13, 1999
1
1
i
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Laker Avenue, West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SEP 13 1999
Tom Dodson & Associates
Attn: Ms. Lisa M.. Kegarice
2150 N_ Arrowhead Avenue,
San Bernardino, California 92405
Dear Ms. Kegarice:
This letter concerns your surveys for the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas
editha quino) that were conducted in 1999. This animal is protected under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Our comments and recommendations are based on the
survey reports you provided to us in accordance with the Survey Protocol for the Endangered
Qumo Cheekerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) for the 1999 Field Season, dated
January 25, 1999. Please be aware that this does not include reviews of habitat assessment
reports.
' The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in consultation with the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Recovery Team, determined that the 1999 flight season was poor and that false negative surveys
were highly probable in the vicinity (within 2 km) of known Quino colonies. Because of this
determination, we conducted a project -by- project review of the 1999 survey reports identifying
surveys that were likely to have resulted in false negative findings. We have completed this
review.
The following table outlines the reports you submitted with our recommendations.
Project Result
r • Winchester Hills Acceptable
-Tentative Parcel Map 14577 Acceptable
i
r
�• Tom Dodson & Associates 2
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Kate Kramer of my staff at (760)
431 -9440.
Sincerely,, , n
nn A. Bartel
Assistant Field Supervisor
I � CC: City of San Bernardino
City of Temecula
1
' APPENDIX A3
Biological references used in responses to Letter #9, US Fish
t and Wildlife Service.
1
i�
,• References:
AOU (American Ornithologists" Union). 1998. Check -List of North American Birds. Seventh
Edition. American Ornithologists" Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pp.
Atwood, J.L. and J.S. Bolsinger. Elevational Distribution of California Gnatcatchers in the
United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 63:159 -168.
Bent, A. C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Part 2. U.S. Nat]. Mus. Bull.
170. 482pp. Botelho, E. S. And P. C. Arrowood. 1998. The effect of burrow site use on the
reproductive success of a partially migratory population of western burrowing owls (Speotyto
cunicularia hypugaea). J. Raptor Research 32: 233 -240. Blus, L. J. 1996. Effects of pesticides on
owls in North America. J. Raptor Research 30: 198 -206. Brown, J. W., H.A. Wier, and D. Belk.
1993. New records of fairy shrimp (Crustacea: Anostraca) from Baja California, Mexico. The
Southwestern Naturalist 38(4): 389 - 390.
Brown, J.H. and B.A. Harney. 1993. Population and community ecology of heteromyid rodents
in temperate habitats. In H.H. Genoways and J.H. Brown (eds.) Biology of the Heteromyidae,
Special Publication No. 10 of the American Society of Mammalogists, pages 618 -651. Brown,
J.H. and G.A. Lieberman. 1973. Resource utilization and coexistence of seed - eating desert
rodents in sand dune habitats. Ecology 54:788 -797. Brylski, P., L. Barkley, B. McKeman, S.J.
Montgomery, R. Minnich, and M. Price. 1993. Proceedings of the Biology and Management of
Rodents in Southern California Symposium. San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands,
California, June 26, 1993. Presented by the Southern California Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
Butts, K. O. 1973. Life history and habitat requirements of burrowing owls in western Oklahoma.
Unpublished MS thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 188 pp. California Science and
Engineering Associates. 1996. Final threatened and endangered species survey, March Air
Reserve Base, Riverside County, California.
Best, T.L. 1996. Lepus californicus, Mammalian Species, Publication of the American Society of
Mammalogists, pp. 1 -10. Bronson, F.H. and O.W. Tiemeir. 1958. Reproduction and age
distribution of black - tailed jack rabbits in Kansas. Journal of Wildlife Management 22:409 -414.
Bronson, F.H. and O.W. Tiemeir. 1959. The relationship of precipitation and black - tailed jack
rabbit populations in Kansas. Evolution 40:194 -198. California Natural Diversity Data Base
(NDDB). 2000 Annotated record search for special animals, plants and natural communities -
Lake Matthews, Alberhill, Corona South, and Santiago Peak quadrangles. Natural Heritage
Division, Sacramento, California.
i
Costa, W.R., K.A. Nagy, and V.H. Shoemaker. 1976. Observations of the behavior of jackrabbits ;
( Lepus californicus) in the Mojave Desert. Journals of Mammalogy 57:399 -402. California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing owl mitigation. State
' of California. Clayton, K. M and J. K. Schmutz. 1999. Is the decline of burrowing owls, Speotyto
cunicularia in prairie Canada linked to changes in the Great Plains ecosystems? Bird
Conservation International 9: 163 -185. Coulombe, H. N. 1970. Physiological and physical I
aspects of temperature regulation in the burrowing o Speotyto cunicularia. Comp. Biochem.
Physiol. 35: 307 -337. Coulombe, H.N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing
owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73: 162 -176.
j
I
Chew, R.M. and B.B. Butterworth. 1964. Ecology of rodents in Indian Cove (Mojave Desert),
Joshua Tree National Monument, California. Journal of Mammalogy 45:203 -225.
DeSante, D.F. and E.D. Ruhlen. 1995. (draft) A census of burrowing owls in California, 1991-
1993
' Dudek and Associates, Inc. 1999. `Draft Proposal " Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Riverside Integrated Plan (RCIP). Prepared for County of
Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. Unpublished report. Encinitas,
California. August.
Edmonds, V.W. 1973. Longevity of the pocket mouse. The Southwestern Naturalist 17:300 -301.
Eng, L.L., D. Belk and C.H. Eriksen. 1990. California Anostraca: distribution, habitat and status.
Journal of Crustacean Biology 10: 247 - 277.
Ehrlich, PR, Dobkin, DS, and Wheye, D. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, California.
Eriksen, C. and D. Belk 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California "s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad
River Press, Inc., Eureka, California.
French, A.R. 1993. Physiological ecology of the heteromyidae: economics of energy and water
utilization. In Genoways, H.H. and J.H. Brown (eds.) Biology of the Heteromyidae, Special
Publication No. 10, The American Society of Mammalogists, pp. 509 -538. Dudek & Associates,
Inc. 1997. Final Report: Stephens" kangaroo rat monitoring program, Lake Perris State
Recreation Area. Prepared for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, 22 pp. +
Appendix.
Green, G.A. 1983. Ecology of breeding burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon.
J I Unpublished MS thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 51 pp. Garrett, K. and J. Dunn.
] I 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society. 407
pp. Green, G. A. 1983. Ecology of breeding burrowing owls in the Columbia basin, Oregon.
M.Sc. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. Green, G. A., R. G. Anthony. 1989. Nesting
success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 91:
347. Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of the Birds of California. Pacific Coast
Avifauna Number 27. Copper Ornithological Club, Berkeley, California. Reprinted by Artemisia
Press, Lee Vining, California; April 1986. 617 pp.
' Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 2 Vol. 1181
PP.
Hathaway, S.A. and M.A. Simovich. 1996. Factors affecting the distribution and co- occurrence
of two southern Californian anostracans (Branchiopoda), Branchinecta sandiegonensis and
Streptocephalus wootonii. Journal of Crustacean Biology 16(4): 669 - 677. Hathaway, S.A., D.P.
Sheehan, and M..A. Simovich. 1996. Vulnerability of branchiopod cysts to crushing. Journal of
Crustacean Biology 16(3): 448 - 452. Hayden, P., J.J. Gambino, and R.G. Lindberg. 1966.
Laboratory breeding of the little pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris. Journal of
Mammalogy 47:412 -423. Hamilton, R. and D.R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County,
California: Status and Distribution. Sea and Sage Press, Irvine, California. 150 pp. with
appendices.
Hickman, James C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of
i
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Holland, Robert F., Ph.D. 1986. Preluninary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural
Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game Nongame Heritage
Program (now Natural Heritage Division), Sacramento. October.
Holland, V.L. and Keil, David J. 1990. California Vegetation, 4 th ed. El Corral Publications, San
Luis Obispo, California.
Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In
The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) . Philadelphia: The Academy
of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists" Union. Hjertaas, D., S.
Brechtel, K. De Smet, O. Dyer, E. Haug, G. Holroyd, P. James, and J. Schmutz. 1995. National
Recovery Plan for the Burrowing Owl. Report No. 13. Ottawa: Recovery of the Nationally
Endangered Wildlife Committee. 33 pp. Hjertaas, D. G. 1997. Recovery plan for the burrowing
owl in Canada. Journal of Raptor Research Report 9:107 -111. James, P.C., and T.J. Ethier. 1989.
' Trends in the winter distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in North America. American
Birds 43:1224 -1225. James, P.C. and R.H.M. Espie. 1997. Current status of the burrowing owl in
North America: an agency survey. Journal of Captor Research Report 9:3 -5.
Jameson, E.W. Jr. and H.J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of California
Berkeley Press. 403 pp.
Jennings, M. and M. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
California (draft). California Department of Fish and Game.
Kenagy, G.J. 1973. Daily and seasonal patterns of activity and energetics in a heteromyid rodent
community. Ecology 54:1201 -1219.
' Kennard, J. H. 1975. Longevity records of North American birds. Bird - banding 46: 55 -73.
Lincer, J. L., and K. Steenhof . [eds]. 1997. The burrowing owl, its biology and management:
including the Proceedings of the First International Symposium. Raptor Research Report Number
9. Lutz, R. S., and D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry and nest site reuse by burrowing owls:
implications for productivity. J. Raptor Research 33: 149 -153. Maza, B.G., N.R. French, and
A.P. Aschwanden. 1973. Home range dynamics in a population of heteromyid rodents. Journal of
Mammalogy 54:405 -425.
MacCracken, J.G., D.W. Uresk, and R.M. Hansen. 1985. Vegetation and soils of burrowing owl
nest sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota. Condor 87:152 -154.
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). 1995. Lake Mathews Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan: Vol. 2.
Meserve, P.L. 1976. Food relationships of a rodent fauna in a California coastal sage scrub
community. Journal of Mammalogy 57:300 -319. Montgomery, Steve. 28 Sept. 1998, Personal
L communication to the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.
Marti, C. D. 1974. Feeding ecology of four sympatric owls. Condor 76: 45 -61. Martin, D. C.
1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75: 446 -456. Millsap, B.
A. and C. Bear. 1992. Double - brooding by Florida Burrowing Owls. Wilson Bull. 102: 313 -317.
National Geographic Society. 1983. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National
1
Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
O "Farrell, M.J. 1980. Spatial relationships of a rodents in a sagebrush community. Journal of
Mammalogy 61:589 -605. O "Farrell, M.J. 1974. Seasonal activity patterns of rodents in a
sagebrush community. Journal of Mammalogy 55:809 -823. Patten, M.A., S. J. Myers, C.
McGaugh, and J.R. Easton. ca 1992. Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus ]ongimembris
' brevinasus). Unpublished report by Tierra Madre Consultants, Riverside, California. Price, M.V.
and S.H. Jenkins. 1986. Rodents as seed consumers and dispersers. In Seed Dispersal, Academic
Press, Australia, pp. 191 -235.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services. 1991. Western Riverside County Multi - species Habitat
Conservation Plan. Robertson, J. M. 1929. Some observations on the feeding habits of the
burrowing owl. Condor 31: 38 -39.
Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. Calif. Dep. Fish and Game,
Sacramento. Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. No. 78 -1. 54pp.
Reichman, O.J. and M.V. Price. 1993. Ecological aspects of heteromyid foraging. In H.H.
Genoways and J.H. Brown (eds.) Biology of the Heteromyidae, Special Publication No. 10 of the
American Society of Mammalogists, pages 539 -574.
Sexton, C.W. and G.L. Hunt. 1979. An annotated checklist of the birds of Orange County,
California. University of California Irvine Museum of Systematic Biology Research Series No. 5.
Schmutz, S. M., and J. S. Moker. 1991. A cytogenetic comparison of some North American owl
species. Genome 34: 714 -717.
Simovich, M.A. and S.A. Hathaway. 1997. Diversified bet - hedging as a reproductive strategy of
some ephemeral pool anostracans (Branchiopoda). Journal of Crustacean Biology 17(1): 38 - 44.
Spencer, W. and C. Schaefer. 2000. Pacific pocket mouse studies program phase I report: task 1 -
translocation feasibility, task 3 - dispersal characteristics. Prepared for Foothill/Eastem
Transportation Corridors Agencies and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Skinner, M.W. and B. M. Pavlik, eds. 1994- Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
of California, 5` edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
State of California. 1991. Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and
Endangered Animals and Plants. Natural Heritage Division, Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, California.
Stebbins, Robert C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts.
Terres, John K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Knopf.
New York, New York.
Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal airport.
Condor 73: 177 -192. Trulio, L. A. 1995. Passive relocation: a method to preserve burrowing
owls on disturbed sites. J. Field Ornithology 66: 99 -106. Trulio, L. 1997. Burrowing owl
• demography and habitat use at two urban sites in Santa Clara County, California. Journal of
Raptor Research Report 9:84 -89.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination
of Endangered Status for Three Vernal Pool Plants and the Riverside Fairy Shrimp. Federal
' Register 58: 41384- 41392.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1971. Soil Survev of Western Riverside Area, California. Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
1 U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Proposed Determination of
Critical Habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. Federal Register 65:5945 -5976.
Whitaker, J.O. Jr., W.J. Wrenn, and R.E. Lewis. 1993. Parasites. In H.H. Genoways and J.H.
Brown (eds.) Biology of the Heteromyidae, Special Publication No. 10 of the American Society
of Mammalogists, pages 386 -478.
Wellicome, T. I. 1997. Reproductive performance of burrowing owls (Speotyto cunicularia):
effects of supplemental food. Journal of Raptor Research Report 9: 68 -73. White, S. D. 1994.
� Vernal Pools in the San Jacinto Valley. Fremontia 22(3): 17 - 19.
Zarn, M. 1974, Burrowing Owl, Report No. 11. Habitat management series for unique or
endangered species. Bureau of Land Management, Denver. 25 pp. Zeiner, D. C., W., F.
Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, M. White. Editors. 1990. California "s Wildlife. Volume 2. Birds.
State of California, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. 731 pp.
HARVESTON
FINAL E / RES T O COM
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
i
1
•
1
PA 1998 \861620I\EIMTABLE OFCON DOC
O M 7 u cq
5 v a0 a O H r * M oo A W 'd v «. O 'fl v
k 0 Y O
M C .'O v O C C ti
►1 �` V _ N w u y v X v 4• O Cd
cn
Y FMWML II LII F v C .O v '�
bhp C O W
C E a„« E x on o b
o a �b0Wrovcv
a o E 8 ° a" C v q ti . t to �l
v E 8 « u
v . O ' w C M E .. N
u �.�, v 7 tl u u u O u y v, cd
"� a N o E a u ' u -M y a G
1 C v N w 0
fL r-i N A v W v ro C Z v
Iv-a w W v
v u ° 0 G v o a a avo v " u= C7
QC x 2z V) O . Fvw.�
a Cl
vv.
a� u
■ ■•` W
of �
•
cn p •
■ d •
I a d
d
■ •
■
I 1.1 •1
■
■
I 1 x ,
. 0 1
. w
■
o
i 1
w
w �
�I w
�..
v ■ O �•
� `'
QVOb Z9NLl ,
•
w
O
O
v7
bySa��N/ ® —
i
wpm r i
N
o0 u u 0
H
° °
O
■ Fii" Q �l u .tlo
o
co
c W U C Q . a
v o • y H O .Y q � w I
`
y C p w h 'y a u v v r O v to
u
m u
u
N N N v C .0 O > Gq v 0 0 u u k O v C
°
u l0 U w U C G C N 40 w
m E M v d o 9 e ^ '> m e4 o v a° « 3 a a a
' - C �• o y .' ° � ' P � u H � v v o v � 0 > � .0 5
■ d v Fj "� N O U d .G-i y u y . ° 'D o q u v
■ y ,u u C
C .0 p v F m 7 d O W o o H y
I m o v =° o
Z z 'v u a "�, u v x nu v n" tl" .� CJ
cn O P. W [-+ b v u v . m M.� b
dF 9E .a u m u o u
a
A
' '1Ntld X33N3 N31S3HJNIM ONI151X3 Q
R�..—H...
w
I a
LL
° I
C
I
T �`1
r
: •� ` � � H b1j�b�bVlY
I i
■ 1 - r
• � 1 �i
� 1
a �3
1
a
0100
0 0 •
-s