HomeMy WebLinkAbout16-63 CC Resolution ' RESOLUTION NO. 16-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA
GATEWAY PROJECT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE TEMECULA
GATEWAY PROJECT (APN 922-170-014, 922-170-015,
922-170-013, AND 922-170-012)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula ("Temecula" or
"City") does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On July 24, 2014, Tony and Amir Dehbozorgi (collectively, the "Applicant')
filed Planning Application No. PA14-0167 for a Zone Change/Planned Development
' Overlay. On November 3, 2014 Tony and Amir Dehbozorgi filed Planning Application
Nos. PA14-2708 for a Tentative Parcel Map, PA14-2707 for a Development Plan, and
PA14-2709 for a Conditional Use Permit for a gas station. On November 4, 2014, Tony
and Amir Dehbozorgi filed Planning Application No. PA14-2710 for a Conditional Use
Permit for a drive-thru facility. On December 8, 2014, Tony and Amir Dehbozorgi filed
Planning Application PA14-2858 for a General Plan Amendment. On July 2, 2015, Tony
and Amir Dehbozorgi filed Planning Application PA15-0985 for a Sign Program. On
January 21, 2016, Sherrie Munroe, on behalf of B&P Oil Services, filed Planning
Application PA16-0090 for a Development Plan. These applications were filed in a
manner in accordance with the Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
B. Collectively, the proposed "Project' consists of a Tentative Parcel Map to
subdivide four lots into six parcels, a change in the General Plan designation for the six
parcels from Professional Office (PO) to Gateway to Temecula Planned Development
Overlay District (PDO-14), a series of standards and regulations governing all
development in PDO-14, and permit approvals for commercial/retail uses. The "Project
Site" is in the west-central portion of Temecula near the northwest corner of Temecula
Parkway and La Paz Road. The Project Site is approximately 8.79 acres in size and
currently includes four parcels (APNs 922-170-012 to -015).
C. The Project was processed and public notices were provided in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental
' Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.).
Resos 16-63 1
D. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is
' the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for approving the
Project.
E. On June 26, 2015, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082,
the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) through the State
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2015061086). The NOP
was circulated from June 26, 2015, through July 27, 2015, to receive comments and
input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in
the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). In addition, the City held a public scoping
meeting on July 22, 2015, to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of
the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1). Written
comments were received from various individuals and organizations and they assisted
the City in formulating the analysis in the EIR.
F. The City subsequently contracted for the independent preparation of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR") for the Project, including all
necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on
the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the Project.
G. On May 31, 2016, the City filed a Notice of Availability ("NOA") with the
' State Clearinghouse and circulated the Draft EIR and Appendices to the public and
other interested parties for a 45-day comment period from May 31, 2016 through July
14, 2016. The City also published the NOA in the San Diego Union Tribune, a
newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to
various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies.
In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR at the City's library and made copies
available for review at the City offices and on the City's website.
H. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from
various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City prepared written responses to
all comments received on the Draft EIR and those responses to comments are
incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR"). The
Responses to Comments were distributed to all public agencies that submitted
comments on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR. The
Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the Comments and
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
I. On October 5, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the Final EIR and the proposed Project, at which time City staff
presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence regarding the Project and the Final EIR.
Resos 16-63 2
J. Following consideration of the entire record, including evidence presented
' at the hearing, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and other materials,
and after due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 16-27 which recommended that the City Council adopt findings pursuant
to CEQA, certify the Final EIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Planning
Commission also adopted Resolution Nos. 16-28, 16-29, 16-30, 16-33, 16-34, 16-31,
16-32, and 16-35 recommending that the City Council take various actions to approve
the Project, including adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change/Planned
Development Overlay, Tentative Parcel Map, and two Development Plans, two
Conditonal Use Permits, and a Sign Program.
K. The City Council finds that agencies and interested members of the public
have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the EIR and the
Project.
L. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that the City, before approving
the Project, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant
effect identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for
each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
' effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the Final EIR.
M. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
1. Environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study and Final EIR as no
impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation are described
in Sections IV and V, respectively, of Exhibit A.
2. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the
Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than
significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section VI.
3. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant and
' unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are
described in Exhibit A, Section VII.
Resos 16-63 3
4. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
' environmental impacts are described in Exhibit A, Section VIII, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
N. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and
adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation
measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation
measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as
Exhibit B, and is incorporated herein by reference.
O. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause
significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations prior to approving the project. The Statement of Overriding
Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference.
P. Prior to taking action the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, as well
as oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings.
Q. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have
produced any substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or
re-circulation of the EIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts
were identified, nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously
' disclosed environmental impacts identified.
R. At the public hearing before the Planning Commission, Joe Bourgeois of
the SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance presented oral comments on the City's
environmental review of the Project. The City previously received, considered, and
responded to each of these comments when SoCal Environmental Justice Alliance
submitted them as written comments on the Draft EIR (see Final EIR, Section 2.0,
Comment Letter 4). Each oral comment is summarized below with a reference to the
applicable response in the Final EIR:
1. Comment: The Draft EIR states that Project's uses would not require
stationary or mobile sources of pollutants that idle or queue for long
periods of time. But during the operational phase it can be anticipated that
the retail, eating and drinking establishments, and offices will have
deliveries or shipments on a regular basis and these can involve
stationary or mobile sources of pollutants.
Response: Response 4.2 in the Final EIR fully addresses this comment,
which the commenter previously submitted as a written comment on the
Draft EIR.
2. Comment: The Draft EIR analyzed waste generation based on employees
only, but it can be assumed that patrons and deliveries would also
' generate waste.
Resos 16-63 4
Response: Response 4.12 in the Final EIR fully addresses this comment,
which the commenter previously submitted as a written comment on the
Draft EIR.
3. Comment: The Draft EIR provides no evidence that the Rancho California
Water District determined there would be adequate water to serve the
Project and no water supply assessment was prepared for the Project.
Response: Response 4.13 in the Final EIR fully addresses this comment,
which the commenter previously submitted as a written comment on the
Draft EIR.
S. Custodian of Records. The findings made in this Resolution are based
upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial
evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings.
The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and
other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is
based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the City Clerk
Department, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. The
City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and
other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is
based.
' Substantive Findings, The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does
hereby:
T. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and
hereby incorporates them into this Resolution by this reference.
U. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been
afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the Project.
V. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the
administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which
includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR,
responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, staff reports and presentations,
and all testimony on environmental issues related to the Project.
W. Find and determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the
potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided
to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached herein as Exhibit
A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as
discussed therein.
X. Find and declare that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of
the City. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the
' staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft
EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new
information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information
Resos 16-63 5
presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or
alternative that the City has declined to implement.
Y. Certify the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council
further adopts the Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as set
forth in Exhibit A; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as
Exhibit B; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit
C. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution
(including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final
EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings
before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the
proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in
Exhibit C, by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the Project despite any
significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged in the record of
proceedings.
Z. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Temecula
Gateway Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to
implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 15th day of November, 2016.
Michael S. Nag r, Mayor
ATT
Randi o , City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos 16-63 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 16-63 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 2016, by the
following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken,
Rahn, Naggar
NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Randi Johl, City Clerk
Resos 16-63 7
' Exhibit A
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
I. Introduction.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.
("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.
("Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been certified that identifies one or
more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public
agency makes one or more of the following findings:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
' Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula
("Temecula" or "City") hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection
with the proposed Temecula Gateway Project (the "Project"). These findings are based
upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments
on the Draft EIR and the written responses thereto, the Final EIR, and reports presented
to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's
environmental consultants.
II. Proiect Objectives.
As set forth in the EIR, objectives that the City seeks to achieve with this Project (the
"Project Objectives") are as follows:
A. Provide a planning mechanism to allow flexibility in development
regulations and design standards to allow a mix of commercial uses that are cohesive in
design and aesthetic appearance, and compatible with the surrounding community.
B. Create an aesthetic entry statement to the City and project on Temecula
Parkway and minimize impacts to neighboring properties by designing with high quality
architecture, landscaping, signage, adequate buffers, screening, drainage, and traffic
controls.
C. Develop retail and community commercial services that can be adequately
' served by existing public services and utilities.
A-1
11086-000612005593v3.doc
' D. Create a commercial development that can capture "pass-by" trips on 1-15
and Temecula Parkway, as well as current and future demand for goods and services
from Temecula residents.
III. Background.
The proposed Project involves the planning and development of six parcels of
approximately 8.79 total acres located in the west-central portion of Temecula ("Project
Site"). The Project Site is currently designated and zoned as Professional Office in the
General Plan and zoning code. The Site is relatively flat and is disturbed with rough
grading. It is covered with ruderal vegetation; there are no trees, except six ornamental
pine trees along the northwestern boundary. The Site is not developed with any
structures.
The proposed Project consists of a General Plan Amendment, adoption of a Planned
Development District, and a zoning code amendment to regulate all development on the
Project Site. The proposed Project would change the Project Site's General Plan
designation to Community Commercial and its zoning to PDO-14 Gateway to Temecula
Planned Development Overlay District ("PDO-14"). PDO-14 sets standards and
regulations related to architecture, setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting screening,
noise, water quality, and other design aspects. The regulations seek to enable use
flexibility while ensuring a cohesive design and compatibility with the surrounding
community. PDO-14 also proposes certain uses for the six parcels, including a health
and exercise club (Parcel 1), a restaurant (Parcel 2), a gas station with a convenience
store and second-story office (Parcel 3), retail and a fast-food restaurant (Parcel 4), a
coffee shop (Parcel 5), and retail, offices and a fast food restaurant (Parcel 6).
IV. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial
Study/Notice of Preparation and EIR.
The City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and conducted an Initial
Study to determine the potential environmental effects of the Project. In the course of
this evaluation, the Project was found to have no impact in certain impact categories
because a project of this type and scope or in this location would not create such
impacts or because of the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this
type. In the following categories of environmental impacts, the proposed Project was
found to have No Impact for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and EIR. The
impacts were not analyzed in the EIR because they required no additional analysis to
determine whether the effects could be significant.
A. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The proposed Project would have a less than significant or no impact on agricultural or
forestry resources. The Project Site is located in an area of substantial urban growth
with little agricultural or forest lands. According to the California Department of
Conservation, the Project Site is listed as "Other Land" on the Important Farmland
' Finder interactive website. There is no agricultural land in the vicinity of the proposed
A-2
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' Project. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract or other land conservation
contract, nor do any Williamson Act contract lands or other land conservation contract
lands exist in the area.
The Project Site does not contain any active forestland or support trees that could be
commercially harvested. These conditions preclude the possibility of the proposed
Project converting agricultural land or forestland to non-forest use.
B. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. The proposed Project would have a less than significant or no
impact on mineral resources. The State Geologist has classified areas into Mineral
Resource Zones (MRZ) and Scientific Resource Zones. The zones identify the
statewide or regional significance of mineral deposits based on the economic value of
the deposits and their accessibility. According to the Temecula General Plan, the
classification of MRZ-3a has been applied by the State to the City's Planning Area.
MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential to supply sand and
gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not
considered to contain deposits of significant economic value, based on available data.
The Project Site is not located in a mineral resource area. Based on these factors,
development of the proposed Project would have no impact on mineral resources.
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. The proposed Project would not have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. The use of septic systems or
alternative waste water disposal systems is not part of the Project.
D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. The proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area.
2. The proposed Project would not place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
E. NOISE
1. The proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan
or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public use airport
to the Project Site is French Valley Airport, located approximately 6.5 miles from the
Project Site.
2. The proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip.
A-3
11 086-0006\2005593v3.doc
V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the
EIR.
The EIR found that the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact without
the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A
less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the
following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained
in the Final EIR.
A. AESTHETICS
1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista or substantially degrade the exiting visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings. The Project Site is not considered to be in an area of significant visual
qualities as designated in any local or regional planning documents, nor does it have
any significant visual features. In addition, future development would not be expected to
block expansive views. If approved, development under the proposed Project would use
high quality architectural and landscaping design concepts in compliance with the
proposed PDO-14.
2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within
a state scenic highway because there are no officially designated state scenic highways
in the Project area.
' 3. The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Current daytime
glare and nighttime light sources in the vicinity of the Project Site include I-15, Temecula
Parkway, the commercial center, and to a lesser extent, the rural residential land uses
to the east of the Project Site. The proposed Project would increase the intensity and
density of development throughout the site, which could result in increased light and
glare sources. Adherence to existing lighting ordinances in combination with the
proposed lighting design would result in a less than significant impact.
4. The Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable
impact on aesthetics.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The proposed Project would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of regional air quality management planning.
2. The Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing air quality violation. Construction-generated emissions would
not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed
Project will not result in long-term operational emissions that could violate or
' substantially contribute to a violation of federal and state standards for ozone and
coarse and fine particulate matter.
A-4
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' 3. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment. Construction
of the proposed Project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and
reasonably foreseeable development in the South Coast Air Basin, would not
significantly contribute to cumulative increases in emissions of criteria air pollutants that
could contribute to future concentrations of pollutants for which the region is currently
designated nonattainment.
4. The proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide or construction-source toxic air
contaminant emissions. The proposed Project would not produce the volume of peak
hour traffic required to generate a CO hot spot and would not contribute to localized
concentrations of carbon monoxide that would exceed applicable ambient air quality
standards. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would
therefore be less than significant. Construction of the Project would not result in toxic air
contaminant emissions in excess of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
localized significance thresholds.
5. The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. Development of the proposed Project would not result in
exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial odorous emissions.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish
and Wildlife Service. Implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to
sensitive biological communities, including jurisdictional waters.
2. The Project would not 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.
3. The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species.
4. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial change in the
significance of a historical resource defined in Public Resources Section 15064.5.
A-5
11086-0006%2005593v3.doc
' Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a known historical resource.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides. The Project Site is located in an
area with the potential for fault rupture, but adherence to the requirements of the
California Building Code would ensure that people, structures, and infrastructure are not
adversely impacted by seismic hazards. The site is not susceptible to liquefaction.
2. The proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil. Construction of the proposed Project would require grading,
excavating, and other ground-disturbing activities that would expose topsoil, resulting in
soil erosion, but implementation of standard erosion control measures would ensure this
impact is less than significant.
3. The proposed Project would not be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, or
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse.
' 4. The proposed Project would not be located on expansive soil
creating substantial risks to life or property. Soil testing indicates that the soils on the
Project Site are non-expansive.
5. The proposed Project, in combination with existing, approved,
proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in Temecula and nearby areas of
Riverside County, would not contribute to cumulative geologic and soils impacts.
F. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with
the goals of applicable greenhouse gas reduction plans.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. Implementation of the proposed Project would involve limited transport, use,
storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation, but
compliance with existing regulations reduces impacts to less than significant.
A-6
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
2. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The
Project Site is located more than 25 miles, but less than 50 miles, from the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station. The facility is in decommission status and existing
emergency procedures are in place.
3. The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Project Site is not located within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school site.
4. The proposed Project would not be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites and, as a result, would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project Site has not been listed
as a hazardous material release site.
5. The proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan
or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project Site is located
approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the French Valley Airport, which is the only public
airport in the vicinity of the Project.
6. The proposed Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
7. The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan. The proposed Project would not alter the City's overall land use patterns or land
use designations to such an extent that they would conflict with the operations or
effectiveness of emergency response or evacuation.
8. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. The
Project Site is within an area designated by Cal Fire as a High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone. Wildland fires would most likely come to the hills west of the Project Site because
all of the high fire severity zones are in that direction. Between the Project Site and the
potential wildland fire areas are Temecula Parkway, existing commercial and residential
development, and Interstate 15. Given this and the fact that the location of the Project
Site makes it readily accessible by emergency personnel and vehicles, the potential for
wildland fires is remote.
9. Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with other
existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the city, could
cumulatively increase exposure of people, property, and the environment to hazardous
materials and interference with emergency response. The Project would not contribute
to the potential for hazards and hazardous materials impacts under cumulative
' conditions. Therefore, the proposed Project's contribution to significant cumulative
A-7
11086-000612005593v3.doc
' impacts to human health associated with hazards and hazardous materials or
conditions is less than cumulatively considerable.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. The proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a
net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The 8.79-
acre Project Site is not large enough to substantially interfere with groundwater
recharge. The Rancho California Water District concluded that there would be sufficient
water supplies to accommodate the Project's water needs and the Project would have a
less than significant impact on water supplies.
2. The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed storm drain system would provide
sufficient volume to treat storm water for water quality purposes and is designed to
properly convey the increased runoff attributable to site development.
3. The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed storm drain
system would provide sufficient volume to treat storm water for water quality purposes
' and is designed to properly convey the increased runoff attributable to site
development.
4. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam. The City's General Plan identifies the Project Site as within
the dam inundation area of Vail Lake. Vail Lake is located in the Black Hills,
approximately 15 miles east of Temecula. The dam is regulated by the California
Division of Safety of Dams, which performs annual maintenance inspections of this and
other dams under state jurisdiction, including monitoring for compliance with seismic
stability standards. As such, failure of this dam has an extremely low probability of
occurring and is not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable event.
5. The proposed Project would not expose people to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because
the Project Site is not located immediately near a coast or large body of water, nor does
it have steep slopes.
6. The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The Project Site
lies outside of a designated floodplain.
' 7. The proposed Project's contribution to cumulative water quality,
runoff, and flooding impacts is less than cumulatively considerable.
A-8
11086-000fi120055930.doc
' I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established
community.
2. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
3. The proposed Project, when considered together with other
development in the City and region, would not result in a significant conflict with an
applicable land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
J. NOISE
1. Operation of the proposed Project would not expose persons to or
generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
2. The proposed Project would not expose persons to or generate
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts related to
groundborne vibration and groundborne noise would be less than significant during
' construction and when the Project is operational.
3. The proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the
Project. Operations would generate increased local traffic with a less than significant
increase in ambient noise levels.
4. Operation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project.
5. The proposed Project will not result in a substantial contribution to
cumulative noise levels. The impact would be considered less than cumulatively
considerable.
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. The proposed Project would not induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. This Project is not residential in nature, as
it involves the development of a neighborhood commercial center. The Project proposes
four commercial buildings totaling approximately 66,634 square feet. Any increase in
population would be minimal and should not induce substantial population growth.
2. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of
' existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The
A-9
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
Project Site is located on vacant property and would not displace any housing units or
people.
3. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project
Site is currently vacant of any structures. No housing units or people would be affected,
and the construction of replacement housing is not required.
4. The proposed Project would have a less than cumulatively
considerable effect on population growth. The proposed Project's potential to induce
growth is less than significant on its own. The proposed Project includes adoption of a
planned development overlay district to ensure compatible uses are developed on the
site and to minimize impacts to neighboring sites though design standards.
L. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. The fire department
already has the necessary equipment to accommodate the Project's proposed uses.
' The Project does not involve the development of residential units that would result in an
increase in the City's population. Nor is the Project expected to result in a large increase
in employment in the area. No additional officers are needed based on officer to
population ratios. Because the Project would not result in an increase in the City's
population, no increase in student population would result from the Project.
2. The proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to impacts related to fire protection, police protection, schools, or other
public facilities.
M. RECREATION
1. The proposed Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The proposed uses
would not result in significant population growth and use of parks.
2. The proposed Project would not include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment. The types of uses proposed do not include
or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities because they do not induce
significant population growth.
A-10
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. The proposed Project would not result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks. The Project Site is located approximately 6.5 miles southwest
of French Valley Airport, which is the only public airport in the vicinity.
2. The proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency
access. Access to the Project Site would be provided by Temecula Parkway through the
Project's proposed four-lane driveway. The Temecula Fire Department has determined
that the proposed emergency access and the main driveway would be adequate to
meet the Fire Department's access standards.
3. The proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The Project Site is served by RTA
Route 24. No additional bus routes are needed to serve the Project. Currently there are
no bicycle facilities along Temecula Parkway in the vicinity of the Project Site and the
Project would not impede a planned bike lane. There is an existing sidewalk on
Temecula Parkway adjacent to the Project Site. Currently, there are no sidewalks along
La Paz Road and Vallejo Avenue adjacent to the Project Site. The Project applicant
proposes the construction of a sidewalk to enhance pedestrian circulation in these
' areas.
O. UTITILIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. The proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources and new or
expanded entitlements not needed.
2. The proposed Project would not require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects
3. The proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed
Project will result in a wastewater demand of 22,260 gallons per day, and the current
treatment capacity of the Temecula Valley Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility is
14 million gallons per day, so the proposed Project would result in an increase of less
than 0.16 percent.
4. The proposed Project would not require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects.
5. The proposed Project would not result in a determination by the
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board that it has inadequate capacity to
serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.
A-11
11086-000612005593v3.doc
' The Eastern Municipal Water District has indicated that there is current capacity in its
wastewater facilities and infrastructure to serve the proposed Project.
6. The proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs. The peak
allowed daily tonnage for the main disposal site in the vicinity, the Badlands Sanitary
Landfill, is 4,500 tons. The proposed Project is estimated to produce 1.83 tons per day.
The proposed Project would result in a 0.06 percent increase in the amount of daily
solid waste delivered to this landfill, well within the designed peak daily tonnage.
7. The proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated
to a Less Than Significant Level.
The EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Paleontological
Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation.
Measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts in this section to a
less than significant level.
The City Council finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce
' the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those
unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VII. The City Council adopts all of the feasible
mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval
of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
A. AIR QUALITY
1. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Mobile-Source Air
Pollutant Concentrations During Operations.
Impact 3.2.6: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in increased
exposure of sensitive land uses to stationary or mobile-source pollutant
concentrations.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to
operational mobile-source air pollutants. Specifically, the following measures have
been included to ensure that the Project's potential air quality impacts remain less than
significant.
MM 3.2.6: Air quality—sensitive land uses (as defined by the SCAQMD
and GARB) proposed within 500 feet of Interstate 15 (not including non-
A-12
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' sensitive components, such as parking lots) shall be required to prepare a
health risk assessment (HRA). Based on the findings in the HRA,
appropriate measures shall be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer
risk resulting from TAC exposure from Interstate 15 to below 10 in one
million for the maximally exposed individual. These measures may
include, but are not limited to, implementation of air filtration/purification
systems at the sensitive land use. Such air filtration/purification systems
can be installed and maintained either on an individual unit-by-unit basis,
with individual air intake and exhaust ducts ventilating portions of the new
sensitive land use separately, or through a centralized building ventilation
system, whichever is more appropriate. The ventilation system must be
certified to achieve a performance effectiveness as determined in the
HRA; for example, to remove at least 85 percent of ambient PM2.5
concentrations from indoor areas. Air intakes must be oriented away from
emission sources areas, such as Interstate 15. Users may factor in the
amount of time that receptors spend indoors versus out-of-doors to
account for air filtration systems in modeling, provided that all assumptions
are justified with scientific documentation.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed Project would not result in significant levels of mobile-source emissions,
' such as gasoline vapors for diesel particulate matter, and would not expose sensitive
receptors to Project-source toxic air contaminants. (See EIR, Table 3.2-12.) However,
the western corner of the Project Site is located within 500 feet of Interstate 15 and
CARB Guidelines indicate that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a
freeway, such as Interstate 15, should be avoided when possible. This 500-foot buffer
was developed to protect sensitive receptors from exposure to diesel PM and was
based on traffic-related studies that showed a 70 percent drop in PM concentrations at
a distance of 500 feet from the roadway.
The western corner of the Project Site is located approximately 415 feet from Interstate
15 and is therefore within the CAR B-recommended buffer area. The eastern half of the
Project Site is approximately 750 feet from Interstate 15 at its nearest point.
Sensitive land uses are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the
population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. For instance, a
health club would be considered a sensitive receptor. The proposed land uses for the
eastern half of the Project Site are not considered sensitive receptors and are outside
the 500-foot buffer area. However, the Project would allow development of future
unknown uses on the western half of the site, which is partially located within the 500-
foot buffer. As such, a future use on the western half of the Project Site could be a
sensitive receptor.
In the event that a sensitive land use is constructed within the CARB-recommended
buffer area on the western half of the Project Site, it would have the potential to expose
' those sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
A-13
11 086-0006\2005593v3.d oc
' Mitigation Measure MM 2.3.6 requires a health risk assessment before any sensitive
land uses within 500 feet of Interstate 15 receive a building permit. Based on the results
of that study, risks resulting from toxic air contaminant exposure must be reduced to
below ten in one million through measures such as air filtration. Although the proposed
Project does not include any land uses considered to be sensitive receptors, this
mitigation measure ensures that any potential sensitive use in the future will not be
exposed to substantial toxic air contaminants because it requires measures to reduce
exposure.
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Impacts to Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Plant Species.
Impact 3.3.1: Implementation of Project-related activities could result in
adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, to special-
status plant species. The Project has a potential to reduce the number or
restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened plant species or
biotic community, thereby causing the species or community to drop below
self-sustaining levels.
The proposed Project has a potential to adversely effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, plant species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species.
' a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to
protected species. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure
that the Project's potential impacts are less than significant.
Measure MM 3.3.1 MSHCP Fees: The applicant shall pay applicable
Local Development Mitigation fees, as established and required by the
Regional Conservation Authority and City of Temecula, for continued
implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Suitable habitat for San Diego ambrosia and smooth tarplant occurs within the Project
study area. Both species are covered under the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"). The Western Riverside County MSHCP
is a comprehensive, multijurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the
conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County.
Compliance with the MSHCP will ensure that direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to
these species are less than significant.
' Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with all applicable requirements of the
MSHCP provide full mitigation under CEQA, the Endangered Species Act, and the
A-14
11086-0006\20055930A
California Endangered Species Act for impacts to MSHCP covered species and
habitats.
The Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) (State
Clearinghouse No. 2001101108, CEQA Number 020463, ERP Number SFW-K99032-
CA) prepared for the MSHCP was a project-specific EIR/EIS and found that with a
combination of impact reduction features incorporated into the MSHCP, including
reserve configuration, adaptive management and monitoring, and species survey and
avoidance/minimization policies, development consistent with the MSHCP would have
less than significant impacts to covered species.
Mitigation Measure 3.3.1 requires the applicant to pay MSHCP fees before
commencement of construction activities. Because compliance with and payment to the
MSHCP constitutes full mitigation under CEQA, impacts would be less than significant
with this mitigation measure incorporated.
2. Impacts to Migratory Birds and Raptors
Impact 3.3.2: Implementation of Project-related activities could result in
substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications,
to migratory birds and raptors.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to
migratory birds and raptors. Specifically, the following measures have been included to
ensure that the Project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant.
Measure MM 3.3.2a Migratory Bird Surveys: If clearing and/or
construction activities occur during the nesting season (January 15—
August 31), preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors, special-status
resident birds, and other migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, up to 3 days before
initiation of construction activities. The qualified biologist shall survey the
construction zone and a 250-foot radius surrounding the construction zone
to determine whether the activities taking place have the potential to
disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds.
If an active nest is located within 100 feet (250 feet for raptors) of
construction activities, the project applicant shall establish an exclusion
zone (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100
feet or 250 feet, as appropriate, around the nest). Alternative exclusion
zones may be established through consultation with the CDFW and the
USFWS, as necessary. The City shall be notified if altered exclusion
zones widths are authorized by these agencies prior to the initiation of
' work. The exclusion zones shall remain in force until all young have
fledged.
A-15
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' Measure MM 3.3.2b: Per MSHCP Species-Specific Objective 6,
preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl on the
Project Site, where suitable habitat is present, will be conducted for all
covered activities throughout construction. Surveys will be conducted
within 30 days prior to disturbance. If no potential burrows are identified,
no further surveys are required. Take of active nests will be avoided. If
construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the
survey, the area shall be resurveyed.
Surveys shall be completed for occupied burrowing owl burrows in all
construction areas and within 500 feet (150 meters) of the project work
areas (where possible and appropriate based on habitat). All occupied
burrows will be mapped on an aerial photo.
If burrowing owls are found to be present on-site, the project applicant
shall develop a conservation strategy in cooperation with the CDFW, the
USFWS, and the Regional Conservation Authority in accordance with the
CDFW's (2012) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
A habitat assessment and focused burrow survey found no suitable habitat or burrows
in the Project study area, and it was determined that further focused surveys are not
' required. (See EIR, Appendix 3.3.)
Nonetheless, it is possible that the Project study area may still provide suitable nesting
and/or foraging habitat for migratory birds even though none are known to occur in the
area. All native breeding birds (except game birds during the hunting season) are
protected under the MBTA. If nesting birds are present, vegetation clearing in
undisturbed portions of the PSA during the nesting season could result in direct
impacts.
Furthermore, noise and other human activity may result in nest abandonment if nesting
birds are present within 100 feet of a work site. Because of the presence of suitable
habitat for migratory birds, Project-related activities may result in adverse impacts
should the species be present in areas proposed for disturbance.
Mitigation Measure 3.3.2a requires pre-construction surveys before any clearing or
construction activities can commence during the nesting season (January 15—August
31). If an active nest is located in the near vicinity, the Project applicant must establish
an exclusion zone of 100 feet or 250 feet. This mitigation measure ensures that clearing
and construction will not significantly impact resident or migratory birds nesting near the
Project site. Mitigation Measure 3.3.2b further requires surveys for burrowing owls
within 30 days before any construction or disturbance for all areas 500 feet around the
Project work areas. This mitigation measure ensures that activities will not significantly
impact burrowing owls, if any exist in the vicinity of the Project site.
' 3. Conflicts with Provisions of an HCP or NCCP
A-16
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' Impact 3.3.6 Implementation of the proposed Project could conflict with
the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
a. Findings
The Project has a potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Changes or alterations have been required
in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant environmental effects related to conflicts with a habitat conservation plan.
Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's
impacts are less than significant.
Measure MM 3.3.1 MSHCP Fees: The applicant shall pay applicable
Local Development Mitigation fees, as established and required by the
Regional Conservation Authority and City of Temecula, for continued
implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Measure MM 3.3.2b: Per MSHCP Species-Specific Objective 6,
preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl on the
Project Site, where suitable habitat is present, will be conducted for all
covered activities throughout construction. Surveys will be conducted
within 30 days prior to disturbance. If no potential burrows are identified,
' no further surveys are required. Take of active nests will be avoided. If
construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the
survey, the area shall be resurveyed.
Surveys shall be completed for occupied burrowing owl burrows in all
construction areas and within 500 feet (150 meters) of the project work
areas (where possible and appropriate based on habitat). All occupied
burrows will be mapped on an aerial photo.
If burrowing owls are found to be present on-site, the project applicant
shall develop a conservation strategy in cooperation with the CDFW, the
USFWS, and the Regional Conservation Authority in accordance with the
CDFW's (2012) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The
MSHCP delineates particular areas of concern through the identification of specific
areas known as Criteria Cells. Areas identified as Criteria Cells typically have certain
restrictions on development and land alterations. The Project study area is not within a
Criteria Cell or any other special conservation area.
However, the proposed Project is located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area.
' Although no suitable habitat was identified in the initial habitat assessment, burrowing
owls have the potential to become established in the future. Therefore, to comply with
A-17
11086-000612005593v3.doc
' the MSHCP, preconstruction surveys must be conducted within 30 days of any ground-
disturbing activities.
In addition, the MSHCP requires a fee for development in Mitigation Fee Areas, which
are land areas that occur within the MSHCP. These fees are used to minimize effects to
and protect certain native species. The Project Site is located in the MSHCP Mitigation
Fee Area (Riverside County Ordinance 810.2). It is also located in the Stephens'
Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee Area (Riverside County Ordinance 663). Therefore, to
comply with the MSHCP, fees must be paid before development of the Project.
Mitigation Measures 3.3.1 and 3.3.2b specifically impose these MSHCP-related
requirements. As such, impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the
standard conditions, existing requirements, and mitigation measure MM 3.3.1 and MM
3.3.2b.
4. Cumulative Biological Impacts
a. Findings
The proposed Project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and
reasonably foreseeable development in the immediate area of the proposed Project, will
result in the conversion of habitat and impact biological resources. Changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
' substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to conflicts
with a habitat conservation plan. Specifically, the Mitigation Measures 3.3.1, 3.3.2a,
and 3.3.3b above reduce impacts to less than significant.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Development of the proposed Project will continue and contribute to urbanization of the
area. The City, along with other jurisdictions in western Riverside County, participates in
the MSHCP. The MSHCP is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over
500,000 acres in western Riverside County. Project compliance with the MSHCP and
the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan fully mitigates for impacts on
covered species and ensures large segments of natural communities in western
Riverside County will be preserved. As such, participation in and compliance with the
MSHCP will reduce the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts to a less than
cumulatively considerable level.
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Archaeological Resources
Impact 3.5.2: Implementation of the proposed Project is unlikely to result
in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource or the potential disturbance of currently undiscovered cultural
' resources (i.e., prehistoric archaeological sites, historical archaeological
sites, and isolated artifacts and features). However, because of the
A-18
11086-0006\2005593v3.d oc
' potential for unanticipated discoveries, this impact is considered
potentially significant.
a. Findings
The proposed Project has a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource. Changes or alterations have been required
in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant environmental effects to archaeological resources. Specifically, the following
measures have been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than
significant.
Measure MM 3.5.2: During any ground-disturbing activities, a member of
the Pechanga Tribe and a certified archaeologist will be required to
monitor. If during grading or construction activities cultural resources are
discovered on the Project Site, work shall be halted immediately within 50
feet of the discovery and the resources shall be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist and the Pechanga Tribe (Tribe). The developer, the project
archaeologist, and the Tribe shall assess the significance of such
resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such
resources. Any unanticipated cultural resources that are discovered shall
be evaluated and a final report prepared by the qualified archaeologist.
' The report shall include a list of the resources discovered, documentation
of each site/locality, and interpretation of the resources identified, and the
method of preservation and/or recovery for identified resources. In the
event the significant resources are recovered and if the qualified
archaeologist and the Tribe determine the resources to be historic or
unique, avoidance and/or mitigation would be required pursuant to and
consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 and
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The Project Site was investigated by a professional archaeologist, who concluded that
there were no identifiable cultural resources within the Project area. However, ground-
disturbing activities during construction and development of the Project have a potential
to uncover previously unidentified archaeological resources within the Project Site.
Mitigation Measure 3.5.2 requires a Tribe member and certified archaeologist to monitor
grading and construction. If cultural resources are discovered, work must halt.
immediately within 50 feet of the discovery and avoidance or mitigation is required as
appropriate based on a determination of the Tribe member and archaeologist. As such,
this mitigation measure would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to
archaeological resources are reduced to less than significant.
' A-19
11 086-0006\2005593v3.d oc
2. Impacts to Paleontological Resources
Impact 3.5.3: Implementation of the proposed Project could
inadvertently result in the potential disturbance of paleontological
resources (i.e., fossils and fossil formations) on the Project Site.
a. Findings
The proposed Project has a potential to result in impacts to a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature. Changes or alterations have been required
in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant environmental effects to paleontological resources. Specifically, the following
measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential cultural and
paleontological resource impacts remain less than significant.
Measure MM 3.5.3: If subsurface deposits believed to be of
paleontological significance are discovered during construction, all work
must halt within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. An on-site
paleontological monitor meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards for paleontology shall be retained by
the project applicant and shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to
evaluate the significance of the find. Work cannot continue at the
' discovery site until the paleontologist conducts sufficient research and
data collection to make a determination that the resource is either not a
paleontological resource or not potentially significant. If a potentially
eligible resource is encountered, the paleontologist, the City of Temecula,
and project proponent shall arrange for either (1) total avoidance of the
resource, if possible, or (2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if
eligible, total data recovery as mitigation. The determination shall be
formally documented in writing and submitted to the City as verification
that the provisions in CEQA for managing unanticipated discoveries have
been met.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Based on searches of paleontological records by the San Bernardino County Museum,
from the University of California Museum of Paleontology database, and the
Paleobiology Database, there are no records of fossils within the proposed boundaries
or within a one-mile radius of the Project Site.
On April 27, 2015, a paleontologically cross-trained archaeologist surveyed the Project
area by walking in parallel transects spaced at approximately 15-meter intervals over
the Project Site while closely inspecting the ground surface. Existing disturbances (e.g.,
rodent burrows, ditches) were examined for artifacts or buried cultural and fossil
deposits. The percentage of ground visibility ranged from 0 to 60 percent throughout the
Project area due to dense grasses and invasive weeds. A drainage running north to
south with an exposed six-foot sidewall is located in the central southern portion of the
A-20
11086-0006Q0055930.doc
survey area. No paleontological resources were observed within or immediately
adjacent to the Project area.
Although the records search and the survey did not identify any paleontological
resources on the Project Site, deeper excavations extending to older sedimentary
deposits may uncover significant vertebrate fossils. Fossils have been recovered from
the Quaternary alluvial sediments and from the sandstone facies of the Pauba
Formation in the vicinity.
Mitigation Measure 3.5.3 requires the applicant to retain an on-site paleontological
monitor and halt work within a 50-foot radius if subsurface deposits believed to be of
paleontological significance are discovered during construction. Avoidance or mitigation
is required to prevent any significant impacts. As such, if Project construction uncovers
any unanticipated paleontological resources, this mitigation measure would ensure that
impacts are reduced to less than significant.
3. Impacts to Human Remains (Standard of Significance 4)
Impact 3.5.4: No human remains have been identified on the Project Site;
however, implementation of the proposed Project could result in the
inadvertent disturbance of currently undiscovered human remains. Any
discovery of human remains would trigger state law governing the
treatment of human remains. This impact is considered to be potentially
' significant.
a. Findings
Construction of the proposed Project has a potential to disturb human remains.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to human
remains. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the
Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Measure MM 3.5.4: If human remains are encountered, California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall
occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings
as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from
disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has
been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be
Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be
contacted within a reasonable time frame. Subsequently, the Native
American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant"
within 24 hours of receiving notification from the coroner. The most likely
descendant shall then have 48 hours to make recommendations and
engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as
' provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
A-21
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Although no human remains have been identified on the Project Site, implementation of
the proposed Project would include ground-disturbing construction activities that could
result in the inadvertent disturbance of currently undiscovered human remains.
Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands
are mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, by Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98, and by CEQA in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e).
According to these provisions, should human remains be encountered, all work in the
immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the
integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The remains are required to be left in
place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and their
disposition has been made. The Riverside County Coroner would be immediately
notified, and the coroner would then determine whether the remains are Native
American. Any discovery of human remains within the Project Site would be subject to
these procedural requirements. Compliance with these requirements would reduce
impacts associated with the unanticipated discovery or disturbance of human remains to
a less than significant level and, further, Mitigation Measure 3.5.3 expressly requires
that construction work halt if subsurface deposits are discovered that are believed to be
of paleontological significance.
' D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Construction Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards
Impact 3.8.1: Construction and operation of the proposed Project could
result in erosion or a degradation of downstream surface water and
groundwater resources.
a. Findings
Construction of the proposed Project has a potential to violate water quality standards
or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been
required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to
less than significant. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure
that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Measure MM 3.8.1a: The project developer shall comply with the NPDES
Construction General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as not to
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Compliance with the Construction General Permit would include filing of a
Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP
incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation
contained in stormwater runoff.
A-22
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
Measure MM 3.8.1 b: As a condition of approval, the project will be
required to generate a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and
as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. Potential
BMPs required by the WQMP include scheduling, minimization of
vegetation disturbance, sandbags, vehicle fueling and maintenance in
designated areas, and storm drain stenciling. This WQMP shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a
building or grading permit.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Urban runoff (both dry and wet weather) discharges into storm drains and, in most
cases, flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff can have
harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Urban runoff pollution
includes a wide array of environmental, chemical, and biological compounds from both
point and nonpoint sources. In the urban environment, stormwater characteristics
depend on site conditions, rain events, soil type and particle sizes, multiple chemical
conditions, the amount of vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition.
Major pollutants typically found in runoff from urban areas that could contribute to
impaired water bodies include bacterial indicators, metals, nutrients, pesticides,
' sediments, oil and grease, and toxicity. (See EIR, Table 3.8-1.)
Urban runoff can be divided into two categories. Dry weather urban runoff occurs when
there is no precipitation-generated runoff, which generally results from point on-site
water usage. Wet weather urban runoff refers collectively to nonpoint source discharges
that result from precipitation events, which includes stormwater runoff.
Construction of the proposed Project could expose soils to potential mobilization by
rainfall/runoff and wind. Such construction activities include removal of vegetation,
grading of the site, and construction of new buildings, associated infrastructure including
internal roads, and landscaped areas. Water quality could be impacted by sediments,
turbidity, and sediment releases.
Mitigation Measure 3.8.1 a, as described above, requires the Project applicant to adhere
to the Construction General Permit and utilize typical erosion and sediment control best
management practices (identified in the stormwater pollution prevention plan
("SWPPP") to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and to keep
all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters. The Construction
General Permit requires the SWPPP to include a menu of best management practices
("BMP") to be selected and implemented to address erosion and sediment control as
well as control of other potential construction site materials. The BMPs are based on the
phase of construction and the weather conditions. The Project-specific SWPPP will
address site-specific conditions related to Project construction.
A-23
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.8.1 b, as described above, requires compliance with
the City's Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, which
establishes requirements to reduce pollutant discharges from construction sites. The
applicant must generate and comply with a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP"),
as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance (City Municipal Code
Chapter 8.28) and specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. The
City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan provides a list of minimum BMPs specific
to all construction activities in Temecula. Further, new development is required to be
designed to control pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff so as to prevent any
deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the
receiving waters. The City Engineer approves the BMPs that would be implemented to
prevent deterioration and approves the manner of implementation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8.1a and 3.8.1b would ensure that
construction of the proposed Project has a less than significant impact on water quality
and ensure that construction would not violate applicable water quality standards.
2. Operational Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards
Impact 3.8.1: Construction and operation of the proposed Project could
result in erosion or a degradation of downstream surface water and
groundwater resources.
' a. Findings
Operation of the proposed Project has a potential to violate water quality standards or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been
required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to
less than significant. Specifically, the Mitigation Measures MM 3.8.1a and 3.8.1b,
described above, ensure that operation of the Project would result in less than
significant impacts to water quality.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Operation of the proposed Project would result in urbanization of the Project Site and
substantially alter existing site conditions. This conversion would increase the
impervious surface area of the site through the introduction of new driveways, parking
areas, rooftops, and other surfaces. An increase in impervious surface area would
increase runoff potentially containing oil and grease, heavy metals, chemicals, and
other urban pollutants. Runoff from the proposed landscape areas could also contribute
pollutants from fertilizers and pesticides.
The Project Site is tributary to Murrieta Creek, the Santa Margarita River (lower and
upper), the Santa Margarita Estuary, and the Pacific Ocean. Urbanization in general has
the potential to add to the pollutants that currently impair Murrieta Creek, the Santa
' Margarita River, and the Santa Margarita Estuary. Murrieta Creek is impaired for
chlorpyrifos, copper, iron, manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus, and toxicity, and the
A-24
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
Santa Margarita River is impaired for phosphorus and toxicity in the upper region and
phosphorus, nitrogen, enterococcus, and fecal coliform in the lower region. The Santa
Margarita Estuary is impaired for nutrients (eutrophic).
The Project would be required to adhere to City Municipal Code Chapter 8.28, which
mandates the implementation of several source control and treatment control BMPs to
reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Municipal Code
Chapter 8.28 also requires the preparation of Project-specific water quality management
plans to comply with waste discharge requirements. The WQMP prepared for the
Project (see EIR, Appendix 3.8-B) targets control of pollutants in runoff typically
produced by urban development (e.g., bacteria and viruses, nutrients, trash, oil and
grease, sediment, oxygen-demanding substances, and pesticides). The Project's
WQMP addresses pollutants (i.e., toxicity, total dissolved solids, phosphorus, copper,
nutrients, and chlorpyrifos) that have impaired receiving waters. BMPs are incorporated
into the design of the on-site storm drain system to treat runoff to the maximum extent
practicable. For instance, the Project proposes to include catch basin filter inserts in all
inlets/catch basins on-site as a pre-treatment measure. The catch basin filter inserts will
remove dirt and oil from runoff before it enters the on-site storm drain system.
In addition, the proposed storm drainage improvements for the Project include the
incorporation of seven bioretention planters designed to treat the necessary volume of
water. (See EIR, Appendix 3.8-A). The proposed bioretention planters have the required
surface area and storage volume to adequately treat the Project Site for water quality
purposes.
Furthermore, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB") issues
permits and waste discharge requirements that require water not be discharged in a
manner that would cause an exceedance of applicable water quality objectives or
adversely affect beneficial uses designated in the Basin Plan. The San Diego RWQCB
requires implementation of various site design BMPs and treatment control BMPs,
including low-impact development BMPs, avoidance of critical sediment yield areas, and
protection of trash storage from rainfall and runoff. (See EIR, Appendix 3.8-C.)
As discussed above, Mitigation Measures 3.8.1a and 3.8.1b require compliance with the
SWRCB statewide general permits for construction and dewatering as well as City
requirements in the Municipal Code, Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program, and
Storm Water.Management Plan. These mitigation measures, together with
implementation of the Project's proposed storm drain system and compliance with
applicable requirements and BMPs, would remove sediment and pollutants from site
runoff. These measures and requirements minimize impacts to downstream surface
water and groundwater resources and ensure that operation of the Project would have a
less than significant impact on water quality.
A-25
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
E. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Conflicts with Provisions of an HCP or NCCP
Impact 3.3.6 Implementation of the proposed Project could conflict with
the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
The Project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western Riverside County
MSHCP are discussed in the Biological Resources section above to address the CEQA
Guidelines, Appendix G standard of whether the Project would conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Nonetheless, the EIR restates this
standard of significance in its Land Use and Planning analysis without additional
discussion. As such, the Project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western
Riverside County MSHCP are presented again here.
a. Findings
The Project has a potential to conflict with the provisions of an applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Changes or alterations have been required
in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant environmental effects related to conflicts with a habitat conservation plan.
Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's
' impacts are less than significant.
Measure MM 3.3.1 MSHCP Fees: The applicant shall pay applicable
Local Development Mitigation fees, as established and required by the
Regional Conservation Authority and City of Temecula, for continued
implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Measure MM 3.3.2b: Per MSHCP Species-Specific Objective 6,
preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl on the
Project Site, where suitable habitat is present, will be conducted for all
covered activities throughout construction. Surveys will be conducted
within 30 days prior to disturbance. If no potential burrows are identified,
no further surveys are required. Take of active nests will be avoided. If
construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the
survey, the area shall be resurveyed.
Surveys shall be completed for occupied burrowing owl burrows in all
construction areas and within 500 feet (150 meters) of the project work
areas (where possible and appropriate based on habitat). All occupied
burrows will be mapped on an aerial photo.
If burrowing owls are found to be present on-site, the project applicant
shall develop a conservation strategy in cooperation with the CDFW, the
USFWS, and the Regional Conservation Authority in accordance with the
CDFW's (2012) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
A-26
11086-0006120055930.doc
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The
MSHCP delineates particular areas of concern through the identification of specific
areas known as Criteria Cells. Areas identified as Criteria Cells typically have certain
restrictions on development and land alterations. The Project study area is not within a
Criteria Cell or any other special conservation area.
However, the proposed Project is located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area.
Although no suitable habitat was identified in the initial habitat assessment, burrowing
owls have the potential to become established in the future. Therefore, to comply with
the MSHCP, preconstruction surveys must be conducted within 30 days of any ground-
disturbing activities.
In addition, the MSHCP requires a fee for development in Mitigation Fee Areas, which
are land areas that occur within the MSHCP. These fees are used to minimize of effects
to and protect certain native species. The Project Site is located in the MSHCP
Mitigation Fee Area (Riverside County Ordinance 810.2). It is also located in the
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee Area (Riverside County Ordinance 663).
Therefore, to comply with the MSHCP, fees must be paid before development of the
Project.
Mitigation Measures 3.3.1 and 3.3.2b specifically impose these MSHCP-related
' requirements. As such, impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the
standard conditions, existing requirements, and Mitigation Measures MM 3.3.1 and MM
3.3.2b.
F. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Traffic Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Use
Impact 3.13.3: Implementation of the proposed Project will result in
increased hazards due to insufficient vehicle stacking length.
a. Findings
The proposed Project has a potential to substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible uses.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to
traffic hazards. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that
the Project's potential impacts are less than significant.
Measure MM 3.13.3: The project applicant shall construct the following
roadway improvements:
• Northbound (from Bedford Court)
A-27
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
• One left turn lane and one shared through/right turn lane;
and
• Protected left turn phasing
• Southbound (from Gateway Drive)
• Two left turn lanes (limited to 110 feet in length due to
location of on-site driveways);
• One shared through/right turn lane, and
• Protected left turn phasing
• Eastbound (from Temecula Parkway)
o One left turn lane with minimum stacking length of 220 feet.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The Project Site plan indicates that the Project access driveway (Gateway Drive) will be
constructed with two inbound lanes and two outbound lanes north at the Gateway
Drive/Temecula Parkway intersection. An internal driveway intersection will be
constructed approximately 120 feet north of Temecula Parkway. A vehicle stacking
length of approximately 110 feet would be provided for queuing in the southbound
approach lanes at the intersection with Temecula Parkway.
Pedestrians are currently not allowed to cross Temecula Parkway at the existing
intersection. Due to the close spacing of the intersection with the 1-15 Northbound
Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection, it was also assumed that pedestrians would not
be allowed to cross Temecula Parkway at the Bedford Court-Gateway Drive
intersection. A pedestrian crosswalk is currently located across Temecula Parkway at
La Paz Road, near the southeast corner of the Project Site.
The environmental analysis assumes that the northbound and southbound left turns of
Bedford Court-Gateway Drive/Temecula Parkway intersection will include left turn
phasing. The longest queue length needed for the eastbound left turn lane is 219 feet
and occurs during the AM peak hour under Opening Year (2017) with Project
conditions. The longest southbound left turn queue length is 300 feet and occurs during
the PM peak hour under cumulative with Project conditions. Under Buildout Year (2035)
conditions, queue lengths are somewhat reduced due to a decrease in volumes on
Temecula Parkway as a result of the construction of the Eastern Bypass from Pechanga
Parkway to Interstate 15. However, southbound left turn queue length still exceeds 200
feet under Buildout Year (2035) conditions during peak hours.
The long queue lengths in the southbound left turn lane are a result of the long signal
cycles and signal coordination of the closely spaced intersections along Temecula
A-28
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
Parkway from 1-15 to La Paz Road, which favors the progression and green signal time
of the heavy east—west through traffic on Temecula Parkway.
The Project proposes an internal driveway intersection to be constructed on the Project
Site approximately 120 feet north of Temecula Parkway, and a stacking length of
approximately 110 feet would be provided for the southbound approach lanes at the
Project access intersection with Temecula Parkway. However, southbound left turn
queuing will extend well beyond the provided stacking distance and the location of the
internal driveway intersection during peak hours. Because queue lengths would extend
beyond the proposed stacking length, impacts are considered potentially significant
without mitigation.
Overall intersection level of service at the Bedford Court-Gateway Drive/Temecula
Parkway intersection with the recommended Project access improvements would be
LOS B during the peak hours under cumulative with Project conditions. The access
improvements identified in Mitigation Measure 3.13.3 would provide southbound queue
lengths through phasing that would not extend beyond the internal driveways and block
access to the driveways. It would extend clearance through two left turn lane and one
shared right-turn and through lane. As such, with implementation of mitigation measure
3.13.3 to roadway hazards would be reduced to a less than significant level.
2. Cumulative Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways
' Impact 3.13.6: When considered with existing, proposed, planned, and
approved development in the region, implementation of the proposed
Project would contribute to cumulative traffic volumes on local roadways
that result in significant impacts to level of service and operations.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the cumulatively considerable impacts to local roadways.
Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the impacts
remain less than cumulatively considerable.
Measure MM 3.13.1a: La Paz RoadNnez Road Intersection. The
project applicant shall contribute fair share funding toward either a traffic
signal or a roundabout (with one lane on all approaches) at the La Paz
RoadNnez Road intersection.
Measure MM 3.13.1 b: 1-15 Southbound and Northbound Ramps at
Temecula Parkway. The 1-15lremecula Parkway Interchange
Improvement Project is fully funded and construction is scheduled to be
completed by 2017. To mitigate the identified significant impacts at these
ramps, the project applicant shall pay required fees to the Riverside
County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, which is
' used to fund projects that improve vehicle circulation in the region.
A-29
11086-000612005593v3.doc
' Measure MM 3.13.6: La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway. The project
applicant shall contribute fair share funding to restripe the southbound La
Paz Road approach from one left turn lane, one through lane, and one
right turn lane to consist of dual left turn lanes, one through lane, and one
right turn lane. Additionally, a "keep clear" zone shall be painted on the
pavement at the intersection to avoid southbound queuing from blocking
access to or from Vallejo Avenue and the planned park-and-ride facility
located at the southeast corner of La Paz Road and Vallejo Avenue.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Four study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or
worse) under cumulative conditions without the proposed Project:
• 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours)
• 1-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour only)
• La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour only)
• La Paz RoadNnez Road (PM peak hour only)
The addition of Project-generated trips has a potential to result in cumulatively
considerable impacts at the following four study intersections under Cumulative with
Project conditions:
• 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours)
• 1-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour only)
• La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours)
• La Paz RoadNnez Road (PM peak hour only)
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.13.1a and 3.13.1b is required for the impacts
at the La Paz RoadNnez Road intersection and the 1-15 northbound and southbound
ramps at Temecula Parkway. These mitigation measures require the applicant to pay
fees to pay for street improvements that would reduce cumulative impacts to the La Paz
RoadNnez Road intersections and the 1-15 ramps at Temecula Parkway.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13.6 is required to address the cumulative
impact at the La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway intersection. The applicant is required to
pay additional fees for re-striping to create a dual left-turn lane and is required to paint a
"keep clear" zone. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the forecast level
of service at the study intersections would be less than significant. (See EIR, Table
3.13-15.) The Project's impacts are thus reduced to less than cumulatively
considerable.
A-30
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
3. Cumulative Impacts to Local Roadways at Buildout Year 2035
Impact 3.13.8 When considered with existing, proposed, planned, and
approved development in the region, implementation of the proposed
Project would contribute to cumulative traffic volumes at buildout that
result in significant impacts to level of service and operations.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the cumulatively considerable impacts to local roadways at
buildout year 2035. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure
that the impacts remain less than cumulatively considerable.
MM 3.13.8a La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway. The project applicant shall
contribute fair share funding toward the construction of a dedicated
westbound right turn lane with a minimum stacking length of 250 feet.
MM 3.13.8b Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway. The project
applicant shall contribute fair share funding to restripe the General Plan
Circulation Element improvement on westbound Temecula Parkway to
provide the following lane geometrics:
§ Three westbound left turn lanes; and
§ Three westbound through lanes.
MM 3.13.8c Jedediah Smith Road/Temecula Parkway. The project
applicant shall contribute fair share funding toward the installation of a
right turn overlap at the southbound approach of the intersection.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
AM and PM peak-hour levels of service for local roadways during Buildout Year (2035)
without and with the proposed Project are summarized in Table 3.13-19 of the EIR.
Three study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E
or worse) both without and with the proposed Project:
• La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway (AM peak hour only)
• Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour only)
• Jedediah Smith Road/Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour only)
The addition of Project-generated trips is forecast to result in significant impacts at the
above three study intersections. Without the Project, these intersections will operate at
a deficient level and the Project would increase delays above a significant level without
' mitigation.
A-31
11086-000612005593v3.doc
Mitigation Measures 3.13.8a, 3.13.8b, and 3.13.8c require the Project applicant to pay
fair-share fees for improvements to the three affected intersections. As shown in Table
3.13-20 of the EIR, the improvements funded through these fees would reduce impacts
to the three affected intersections to a less than cumulatively considerable level at
Buildout Year (2035).
VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation.
In the environmental areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Noise, and
Transportation and Circulation, there are instances where potential environmental
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below:
A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Generation of GHG Emissions
Impact 3.4.1: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions in
the year 2020 and beyond. The Project's contribution would be
cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
a. Findings
' The proposed Project has a potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. No feasible
mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the Project's potential impacts
related to greenhouse gas emissions because approximately 80 percent of the Project's
GHG emissions are attributed to mobile emissions that are outside of the jurisdictional
authority of the City to regulate. Impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would
remain significant and unavoidable.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Construction of the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,288 total metric
tons of CO2e, at approximately 809 metric tons per year. In accordance with the
SCAQMD guidance, projected GHGs from construction are quantified and then
amortized over the life of the Project, which is 30 years. The amortized construction
emissions are included in the annual average operational emissions.
SCAQMD's interim screening level numeric "bright-line" threshold is 3,000 metric tons of
CO2e annually. The proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately
3,773 metric tons of CO2e annually in year 2020 and 3,524 metric tons of CO2e
annually in 2035. Thus, the proposed Project exceeds SCAQMD's interim threshold of
3,000 metric tons annually.
In addition, SCAQMD recommends an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 metric tons of
' CO2e per service population (residents plus employees) per year by the year 2020 and
3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035. The efficiency-based
A-32
11086-000612005593v3.d 0C
' threshold is used to assess the Project's impacts to the post-2020 GHG reduction goals
from Executive Order B-30-15 (2015) and Executive Order 5-03-05 (2005). SCAQMD's
approach is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to
substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide
GHG emissions. The Project is expected to have a total 274 employees and no
residences. As such, the service population increase is 274.
Using the efficiency-based thresholds, the Project would generate 13.7 metric tons of
CO2e annually per service population for year 2020 and 12.8 metric tons of CO2e
annually per service population for year 2035. These emissions would surpass both the
year 2020 and year 2035 efficiency-based significance thresholds.
The majority of GHG emissions resulting from the Project would be generated by mobile
sources. Of the approximately 3,773 metric tons of CO2e emission annually in year
2020, about 3,004 metric tons result from mobile sources. Of the approximately 3,524
metric tons of CO2e emissions annually in 2035, 2,844 metric tons result from mobile
sources. These mobile-source emissions are regulated at the regional, state, and
federal levels and are not directly regulated by cities, including the City of Temecula.
To reduce non-mobile source emissions, the Project would already be required to
implement energy efficiency design requirements consistent with the California Green
Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11). No
additional feasible mitigation is available to reduce impacts related to GHG emissions.
' The large majority of GHG result from mobile sources. The resulting GHG emissions
generated by the Project are nevertheless considered cumulatively considerable and
significant and unavoidable.
B. NOISE
1. Construction Noise Impacts
Impact 3.10.1: Construction of the proposed Project may expose persons
to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's
General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies.
Impact 3.10.5 Construction of the proposed Project may result in a
temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity.
a. Findings
During construction, the proposed Project has a potential to temporarily generate noise
levels that may result in (1) exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of applicable local standards and (2) a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the
Project.
A-33
11086-0006Q0055930.doc
' Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that
reduce the impacts related to construction noise. The below mitigation measures are
required in order to reduce construction noise impacts to the extent feasible.
Measure MM 3.10.1 a: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
applicant shall submit a construction-related noise control plan to the City
for review and approval. The plan shall:
• Depict the location of construction equipment staging areas.
• Require that construction contractors equip construction
equipment (fixed or mobile) with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers'
standards.
• Require that the construction contractor place stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed
away from the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project
Site.
• Describe other noise control measures that will be
implemented during project-related construction activities.
Barriers such as plywood structures or flexible sound control
' curtains shall be erected around the Project Site to minimize
the amount of noise on the surrounding off-site sensitive
receptors to the maximum extent feasible during
construction.
The construction supervisor shall ensure compliance with the noise control
plan, and the City shall conduct periodic inspections at its discretion.
Measure MM 3.10.1 b: The construction supervisor shall provide written
notification of planned activities to the City of Temecula and to each of the
property owners with buildings located along Vallejo Avenue a minimum of
15 days prior to commencement of each phase of construction.
Measure 3.10.1 c: The construction supervisor shall maintain a complaint
log noting date, time, complainant's name, nature of the complaint, and
any corrective action taken. A copy of the complaint log shall be provided
to the City on a daily basis. The project manager shall publish and
distribute to the potentially affected community, a phone number that is
attended during active construction working hours for use by the disturbed
public to register complaints.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
' Construction temporary generates elevated noise levels due to activities such as site
grading and earthwork, road paving, building construction, and operation of motor
A-34
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' vehicles and construction equipment. To provide a conservative or "worst-case"
analysis, the EIR assumed that the entire Project Site would be construction in one
single phase of active construction.
Heavy construction equipment can generate noise between approximately 70 dBA to in
excess of 100 dBA when measured at 50 feet. Noise levels generated by individual
pieces of construction equipment typically range from approximately 74 dBA to 89 dBA
Lmax at 50 feet. Average-hourly noise levels associated with construction projects can
vary, depending on the activities performed, reaching levels of up to approximately 83
dBA Leq at 50 feet.
Although noise ranges are generally similar for all construction phases, the initial site
preparation phase tends to involve the most heavy-duty equipment having a higher
noise-generation potential. However, these noise levels diminish with distance from the
construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. The highest construction
noise level impacts will occur during construction activities at the boundaries of the
Project Site adjacent Vallejo Road because these boundary areas are nearest to noise
receptors. However, existing noise levels along Temecula Parkway are above 75 dBA
and construction noise would be "absorbed" by the existing ambient noise levels.
Under Temecula Municipal Code, Section 9.20.040, residential land uses such as
single-family residences should not be exposed to an exterior noise level that exceeds a
maximum of 65 dB Ldn /CNEL generated by a noise source, including during
' construction activities. Nearby residential receptors at a distance of less than 50 feet
from the Project boundaries will likely experience temporary/periodic noise levels
caused by various construction equipment in excess of the 65 dB standard. (See EIR,
Table 3.10-7.) Municipal Code Section 9.20.070 allows the City Manager to grant an
exception from the noise limits, which would permit construction under the City's
Municipal Code.
The City of Temecula limits construction activities to between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturday.
Construction is prohibited on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. To further
reduce impacts related to construction noise, Mitigation Measures 3.10.1 a, 3.10.1 b, and
3.10.1c require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during
construction at the Project Site, as well as notification of the affected noise-sensitive
receptors. These mitigation measures reduce the noise levels associated with
construction to the maximum extent feasible. However, off-site sensitive receptors may
still be exposed to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
that would exceed the City's 65 dB Ldn/CNEL standard.
C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Substantial Increase in Traffic Volume
Impact 3.13.1 The proposed Project would result in an increase in traffic
' under the existing plus Project and the Opening Year (2017) scenarios
A-35
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system or exceeds an established level of service standard (i.e.,
results in a substantial increase in either the volume-to-capacity ratio
and/or the level of service at intersections).
a. Findings
The proposed Project has a potential to result in a substantial increase in traffic volume.
Due to this traffic-volume increase, the proposed Project has a potential to conflict with
(a) an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system and (b) an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to traffic
volumes. Specifically, the following mitigation measures reduce traffic volume impacts
to the extent feasible.
Measure MM 3.13.1a La Paz RoadNnez Road Intersection. The
project applicant shall contribute fair share funding toward either a traffic
signal or a roundabout (with one lane on all approaches) at the La Paz
RoadNnez Road intersection.
Measure MM 3.13.1b 1-15 Southbound and Northbound Ramps at
Temecula Parkway. The 1-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange
Improvement Project is fully funded and construction is scheduled to be
completed by 2017. To mitigate the identified significant impacts at these
ramps, the project applicant shall pay required fees to the Riverside
County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, which is
used to fund projects that improve vehicle circulation in the region.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Three intersections operate at a deficient level of service (LOS D or worse) under
existing conditions and these three intersections would continue operating at deficient
levels of service with the addition of Project-generated trips:
§ Rainbow Canyon Road/Pechanga Parkway during PM peak hour only
(LOS F with and without Project-generated trips)
§ La Paz RoadNnez Road during PM peak hour only (LOS E, reduced to F
with Project-generated trips)
§ 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway during both AM and PM peak
hours (LOS D, with and without Project-generated trips)
A-36
11 086-0006\2005593v3.doe
The proposed Project is planned to open in 2017. Three intersections will operate at
deficient levels of service under Opening Year (2017) conditions and would continue
operating at deficient levels of service with the addition of Project-generated trips:
§ 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway during both AM and PM peak
hours (LOS D with and without Project-generated trips)
§ 1-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway during PM peak hours only
(LOS D with and without Project-generated trips)
§ La Paz Road/Ynez Road during PM peak hours only (LOS F with and
without Project-generated trips)
The Rainbow Canyon Road/Pechanga Parkway currently operates at a LOS F deficient
level of service during PM peak hours. However, its level of service would improve to
LOS C under baseline Opening Year (2017) conditions because striping changes will be
completed at the northbound Rainbow Canyon Road approach, which will allow
effective use of dual left-turn and right turn lanes. This improvement is expected to be
implemented as part of the nearby Temecula Creek Inn expansion project. If for some
reason the Temecula Creek Inn expansion project does not move forward, the restriping
would be conducted as part of the Temecula Gateway Project.
For the La Paz Road/Ynez Road intersection, a traffic-signal warrant analysis
' determined that conditions warrant installation of a traffic signal under both existing and
Opening Year (2017) conditions. This traffic signal would improve levels of service and
delays to an acceptable level reduce impacts at this intersection to less than significant
under existing plus Project and Opening Year (2017) plus Project conditions. Mitigation
Measure 3.13.1 a requires the applicant to pay a fair-share fee toward either a traffic
signal or roundabout at this intersection. As such, impacts to the La Paz Road/Ynez
Road intersection would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.13.1 a.
For the 1-15 Southbound/Temecula Parkway and 1-15 Northbound/Temecula Parkway
intersections, the 1-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange Improvement Project is fully
funded and construction is scheduled to be completed by 2017. This Improvement
Project will include the reconstruction of the Old Town Front Street/Temecula Parkway
and 1-15 southbound ramps/Temecula Parkway intersections as a single intersection.
Under Opening Year (2017) conditions with or without the Project, these 1-15
intersections at Temecula Parkway would continue to operate at an LOS D level of
service, but the payment of fees identified in Mitigation Measures MM 3.13.1 b would
help counterbalance impacts to state highway facilities. Nonetheless, because levels of
service at these 1-15 intersections remain deficient and impacts to these facilities would
continue to result in an exceedance of the LOS thresholds, the proposed Project would
have a significant and unavoidable impact to this facility. No feasible mitigation is
available in addition to the existing 1-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange Improvement
Project.
A-37
11 086-0006\2005593v3.d oc
2. Cumulative Traffic Impacts on State Highway Facilities
Impact 3.13.7 When considered with existing, proposed, planned, and
approved development in the region, implementation of the proposed
Project would contribute to cumulative traffic volumes on state highway
that result in significant impacts to level of service and operations. This is
considered a cumulatively considerable impact.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant cumulative impacts to state highway
facilities. The below mitigation measures are required in order to reduce traffic impacts
to the extent feasible.
Measure MM 3.13.1b: 1-15 Southbound and Northbound Ramps at
Temecula Parkway. The 1-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange
Improvement Project is fully funded and construction is scheduled to be
completed by 2017. To mitigate the identified significant impacts at these
ramps, the project applicant shall pay required fees to the Riverside
County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, which is
used to fund projects that improve vehicle circulation in the region.
' b. Facts in Support of Findings
An 1-15/Temecula Parkway interchange improvement project is fully funded and
construction is scheduled to be completed by 2017. Nonetheless, impacts to highway
facilities with and without completion of the 1-15/Temecula Parkway interchange
improvement project were considered in the event that the interchange project is not
completed before the development of the proposed Project. As such, an analysis was
completed to assess the 1-15 facilities with or without the Project and without or without
the scheduled improvements.
Under cumulative conditions without improvements, the queue exceeds storage
capacity for the right turn movement during the PM peak hour both without and with the
proposed Project for the 1-15 northbound off-ramp. For the 1-15 southbound ramp, the
queue exceeds the storage capacity for the left turn and through movements during
both the AM and PM peak hours without and with the proposed Project. However, with
the scheduled interchange improvements, the queue for all the movements on both the
northbound and southbound off-ramps does not exceed the storage capacity with or
without the Project. (See EIR, Table 3.13-17.)
For merging under cumulative conditions without the Project, the 1-15 southbound-ramp
merge area operates at a deficient level of service (LOS D or worse) during the AM
peak hour. The ramp merge and diverge areas operating at a deficient level of service
under cumulative conditions without the Project will continue to operate at a deficient
level of service with the addition of Project-generated traffic.
A-38
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
The fees imposed by Mitigation Measure 3.13.1 b would assist in the counterbalancing
of impacts to state highway facilities caused by the proposed Project. However, impacts
to these facilities would continue to result in an exceedance of the LOS thresholds. The
1-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange Improvement Project is already funded and no
additional feasible mitigation is available to mitigate cumulative impacts to state highway
facilities. As such impacts are considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable.
3. Cumulative Traffic Impacts on State Highway Facilities — Buildout
Year (2035) Conditions
Impact 3.13.9: When considered with existing, proposed, planned, and
approved development in the region, implementation of the proposed
Project would contribute to cumulative traffic volumes on state highway
facilities at buildout that result in significant impacts to level of service and
operations.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that
reduce the impacts related to transportation and circulation. The below mitigation
measures are required in order to reduce traffic impacts to the extent feasible.
Measure MM 3.13.1b: 1-15 Southbound and Northbound Ramps at
' Temecula Parkway. The 1-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange
Improvement Project is fully funded and construction is scheduled to be
completed by 2017. To mitigate the identified significant impacts at these
ramps, the project applicant shall pay required fees to the Riverside
County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, which is
used to fund projects that improve vehicle circulation in the region.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Based on a level of service analysis, the Old Town Front StreeU1-15 Southbound
Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection is forecast to operate at a deficient level of
service (LOS D or worse) during both the AM and PM peak hours under Buildout Year
(2035) conditions without the proposed Project. With the addition of Project-generated
trips, this intersection is forecast to continue operating at a deficient LOS D during peak
hours. Based on the City's thresholds of significance, the addition of Project-related
traffic does not result in significant impacts to levels of service at the ramp intersections
under Buildout Year (2035) conditions.
Based on a queuing analysis, the 1-15 northbound off-ramp left-turn movement will have
queue lengths that exceed storage capacity during both the AM and PM peak hours
without and with the proposed Project. The 1-15 southbound off-ramp left-turn
movement will have queue lengths that exceed storage capacity without and with the
proposed Project, but only during the AM peak hour.
A-39
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' Based on a merge/diverge analysis, the demands on the 1-15 northbound ramp
merge/diverge area will exceed capacity and operate at a deficient LOS F during the
PM peak hour under Buildout Year (2035) conditions with and without the proposed
Project. The 1-15 southbound ramp merge area will operate at a deficient level of
service (LOS D or worse) during the AM peak hour under Buildout Year (2035)
conditions with and without the proposed Project.
The fees imposed by Mitigation Measure 3.13.1b would assist in the counterbalancing
of impacts to state highway facilities at Buildout Year (2035). However, impacts to these
facilities would continue to result in an exceedance of the LOS thresholds based on
queuing and merge/diverge demand. The 1-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange
Improvement Project is already funded and no additional feasible mitigation is available
to mitigate cumulative impacts to state highway facilities. As such impacts are
considered cumulatively considerable and unavoidable.
VIII. Project Alternatives.
The EIR considered and analyzed four alternatives to the Proposed Project:
Alternative 1—No Project, No Build; Alternative 2—No Project, Permitted Development;
Alternative 3—Reduced Project Development; and Alternative 4—No Health and
Fitness Center or Sit-Down Restaurant, with 175-Room Hotel. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR analyzed and considered two "No Project"
alternatives because there are two possible outcomes if the City does not approve the
' Project: either the "No Build" alternative or the "Permitted Development" alternative. In
addition, a range of other alternative site access options were considered and rejected,
as described in section 4.0 of the EIR.
The four alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR are discussed below, including the
basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is
available in Table 4.0-7 of the EIR. Each alternative's environmental impacts are
considered and analyzed, along with an analysis of whether it achieves any of the
Project Objectives as shown below.
• Provide a planning mechanism to allow flexibility in development
regulations and design standards to allow a mix of commercial uses that
are cohesive in design and aesthetic appearance, and compatible with the
surrounding community.
• Create an aesthetic entry statement to the city and project on Temecula
Parkway, and minimize impacts to neighboring properties by designing
with high quality architecture, landscaping, signage, adequate buffers,
screening, drainage, and traffic controls.
• Develop retail and community commercial services that can be adequately
served by existing public services and utilities.
A-40
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
• Create a commercial development that can capture "pass-by" trips on
Interstate 15 and Temecula Parkway, as well as current and future
demand for goods and services from Temecula residents.
A. ALTERNATIVE ONE — NO PROJECT-NO BUILD
1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 1 evaluates the environmental impacts if the Project Site were to remain in
its current state as vacant land for the foreseeable future. The existing Project Site is
graded but has no structural development, so the existing condition of the site is vacant
and relatively flat. There is a slight gain in elevation from 1,010 to 1,062 feet from the
southwest to north end of the Site. The Project Site is covered with ruderal vegetation
and there are no trees with the exception of five ornamental pine trees along the west
side of La Paz Road and six ornamental pine trees along the northwestern boundary of
the site. No natural water features (i.e., rivers, streams, or lakes) are located on the
Project Site. On the west side of the site, an ephemeral drainage flows into a culvert
under Temecula Parkway.
Under Alternative 1, no development would occur on the Project Site for the foreseeable
future and the Site would remain in its current graded and undeveloped condition.
Although Alternative 1 could occur if the City does not approve the Project, it is not what
can most reasonable be expected to occur on the Site if the Project is not approved
' because development is permitted on the Site as discussed and analyzed under
Alternative 2.
2. Reason for Reiectino Alternative
Alternative 1 is the "No Build" alternative in which no development would occur on the
Project Site. The Site would remain graded, vacant, and undeveloped land.
Environmental impacts in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and
Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources correlate primarily with the footprint of site
development because they relate to the location of a project and the development of
vacant land. The Project's impacts in these categories are all less than significant or
mitigated to less than significant. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would result in reduced
impacts in these impact categories (Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources) because the Project Site would remain
vacant.
For aesthetic impacts, Alternative 1 would also not impact views, scenic resources, or
the visual character and quality of the Site because no development would occur and
the Site would remain in its current condition. The Project's aesthetics impacts are all
less than significant without mitigation. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would have no
impacts to aesthetics and would therefore reduce impacts compared to the proposed
Project.
A-41
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' Air quality impacts would be reduced under Alternative 1 because it would not build
uses near 1-15 and no development would occur on the Project Site. The proposed
Project would not exceed applicable air quality thresholds, result in TAC impacts, or
conflict with regional air quality management planning. However, portions of the Project
Site are located within 500 feet of the 1-15 and future development of the Site may occur
on those portions. Because Alternative 1 would result in no development, it would have
no impacts to air quality and would therefore reduce impacts compared to the proposed
Project.
Greenhouse gas emissions would similarly be reduced under Alternative 1. Because no
development would occur on the site, it would not result in any stationary or mobile-
source GHG emissions. The proposed Project's GHG emissions are significant and
unavoidable, primarily due to mobile-source emissions arising from vehicles to and from
the Project. Alternative 1 would reduce these impacts, as no development would occur
at the Site.
No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on any of the Project Site's parcels.
As compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 1 would have a lower potential to
release unknown and unanticipated hazardous material because it includes no
development and no storage of gasoline on-site. As such, Alternative 1 would have no
impact to hazards and hazardous materials, which results in less impact than the
proposed Project's less than significant impacts. Impacts related to airport and wildfire
' hazards would be similar because the Project Site remains the same.
For land use impacts, Alternative 1 would not result in any changes to the General Plan
land use designation or zoning for the Project Site and therefore would not have any
potential conflicts with existing City of Temecula land use policies or regulations. As with
the proposed Project, development of Alternative 1 would not result in the physical
division of an established community or conflict with a habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan. However, the site is currently identified in the
General Plan with the Professional Office land use designation. Implementation of
Alternative 1 would not allow the development of the site as professional office uses,
which would not result in a significant impact but would result in impacts similar to the
proposed Project because it would not implement the General Plan's current vision. As
such, impacts on land use would be similar to those anticipated under the proposed
Project.
Noise impacts would not occur under Alternative 1 because it would not result in
changes to the existing conditions of the Site. As such, Alternative 1 would result in no
noise impacts and would have less of an impact related to noise than the proposed
Project.
Population and housing impacts would not occur under Alternative 1 because no
development of the site would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would not result in
population growth. Neither the proposed Project nor Alternative 1 would remove
housing or displace persons, as there are no housing units on the Project Site.
' Alternative 1 would have no impact regarding population and housing and therefore
A-42
11086-0006\20055930.doc
would have less impact than the proposed Project, which already has a less than
significant impact.
Impacts to public services and utilizes would be less under Alternative 1 due to the lack
of development. Although the fire department and police department would respond to
the Site in case of a fire or a crime committed on the site, the demand for public
services and utilities would be the same as it exists currently. Implementation of the
proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to law enforcement, fire
protection, schools, and parks and recreation. Additionally, the proposed Project would
result in less than significant impacts to water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and
solid waste capacity and facilities. While none of the proposed Project's impacts would
require new or expanded facilities, the proposed Project would increase the demand for
all of the public services and utility facilities in the city. As such, Alternative 1 would
have no impact to public services and utilities, compared to the less than significant
impacts under the proposed Project.
Alternative 1 would result in no increases in traffic or demand for public transit or
bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Alternative 1 would not result in additional pedestrian
facilities, result in impacts to existing roadways, or increase the demand for public
transportation. The proposed Project would result in the addition of sidewalks/walking
paths that do not currently exist on the Project Site and would not result in significant
impacts to public transit or bicycle/pedestrian facilities. However, the proposed Project
' would result in significant impacts to a number of roadways and intersections in the
Project area, resulting in cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable
impacts to Caltrans facilities. As such, Alternative 1 would have less impact when
compared to the proposed Project regarding transportation and circulation.
Overall, Alternative 1 would therefore reduce environmental impacts compared to the
proposed Project. However, Alternative 1 does not satisfy any of the four Project
Objectives. Because Alternative 1 would result in no development of the Site, it would
not create flexibility to allow a mix of commercial uses, create an aesthetic entry
statement to Temecula, develop retain and commercial services, create development to
capture "pass-by" trips on Interstate 15 and Temecula Parkway, or provide for the
current and future demands of Temecula residents. Whereas the proposed Project
satisfies each Project Object, Alternative 1 fulfills none of the Objectives.
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 1 would not meet any of the Project
Objectives. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above
would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 1, and by itself, independent of
any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 1.
B. ALTERNATIVE 2 — NO PROJECT-PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 2 provides the comparison of the proposed Project versus what can
' reasonably be expected to occur on the properties should the proposed Project not be
A-43
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' approved but future development occurs. The analysis allows decision-makers to
compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the
project.
This "No Project-Permitted Development" alternative does not necessarily mean the
Site will remain undeveloped because the Project Site is designated for future potential
professional office uses in the General Plan and zoning code of Professional Office
(PO). If no action is taken on the proposed Project, it is reasonable to assume that a
professional office project would be proposed in the foreseeable future consistent with
the General Plan and zoning.
The PO zoning district establishes a minimum gross area of a development site at five
acres. As such, if the Site were developed under the PO zoning district, the 8.79-acre
Project Site would be treated as one site. The PO zoning district has a target floor area
ratio (FAR) of 0.50. This would result in a potential building coverage of about 4.4 acres
or 191,664 square feet.
The Project Site's PO zoning designation allows a wide variety of uses, including
offices, hotels, parking lots, grocery stores, hospitals, churches, and emergency
shelters. Because of the array of allowed uses in the PO zoning district, the potential
environmental impacts would vary considerably.
In order to define the potential environmental impacts of Alternative 2 for comparison
' purposes, a government office was selected as a possible use. Government office
represents one of the highest levels of vehicle trips for the allowed uses in the PO zone
based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Rates manual.
Based on the ITE manual, a 191,664-square-foot government complex would generate
approximately 5,352 daily vehicle trips.
Many environmental impacts analyzed in an EIR are related to the project's location,
such as such as biological, cultural, geologic, and visual impacts. However, some
environmental impacts are related to the type of project, such as traffic and traffic's
effects on air quality, GHG emissions, and noise. This is because different uses
produce different amounts of traffic.
2. Reason for Reiecting Alternative
Environmental impacts in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and
Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources correlate primarily with the footprint of site
development because they relate to the location of a project and the development of
vacant land. The Project's impacts in these categories are all less than significant or
mitigated to less than significant. Impacts in these categories would occur under
Alternative 2 and would be similar to the proposed Project because Alternative 2 would
similarly develop the vacant Site. Although the proposed Project would have a
somewhat larger building footprint, both projects would require land clearing and
grading of almost the entire site. This would result in the same impacts and require the
' same mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology
A-44
11086-0006QO05593v3.doc
' and water resources. In addition, geological impacts and mitigation measures would be
the same, as the buildings of Alternative 2 would have same potential for seismic,
landslide, liquefaction, and other geological impacts as the proposed Project. Therefore,
Alternative 2 would have the same impact in these categories as compared to the
proposed Project.
For aesthetic impacts, Alternative 2 would result in development of a 191,664-square-
foot government office complex. The Site's PO zoning designation allows a maximum
building height of 75 feet whereas the proposed Project has a maximum building height
of 35 feet for those buildings located on Parcels 3 through 6 and 74 feet for building
located on Parcels 1 and 2. The proposed Project would have a less than significant
impact to aesthetics, with no mitigation required. Because location and other property
features remain the same, allowed building heights would be the major difference
between Alternative 2 and the proposed Project. The area of the proposed Project that
is limited to a maximum building height of 35 feet in the proposed Project (Parcels 3 to
6) could be developed at a height of 75 feet under Alternative 2. This height increase
under Alternative 2 would be substantial and, therefore, result in greater aesthetic
impacts compared to the proposed Project.
Air quality impacts would be greater under Alternative 2 because it would exceed
reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions whereas the proposed Project would not exceed
any air quality emission thresholds. Alternative 2 would exceed the threshold for
' reactive organic gases (ROG) during construction, which would require mitigation.
Additionally, impacts related to exposure of sensitive land uses to stationary or mobile-
source pollutant concentrations would be similar because this impact is related to Site's
proximity to 1-15 as well as to type of use. Mitigation is imposed on the proposed Project
to reduce impacts to less than significant and could similarly reduce Alternative 2's
impacts related to exposure of land uses to pollutant concentrations. Because
Alternative 2 would result ROG emissions that exceed thresholds during construction,
impacts would be greater than those for the proposed Project.
Greenhouse gas emissions would be greater under Alternative 2 and would also result
in a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact because
Alternative 2 results in a larger development scenario. The proposed Project's
greenhouse gas emissions are also cumulatively considerable and significant and
unavoidable, with no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts to less than
significant. Approximately 80 percent of the proposed Project's GHG emissions result
from mobile source and this percentage would be similar under Alternative 2. Therefore,
impacts related to GHG would also be significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2,
but impacts would be greater under the alternative scenario.
No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on any of the Project Site's parcels.
As compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would have a lower potential to
release unknown and unanticipated hazardous material because it does not include
storage of gasoline on-site. Alternative 2 replaces the gasoline station use with
government offices. However, this potential is considered low under either scenario and
' therefore would result in less than significant impacts. As such, Alternative 2 would
A-45
11086-0006\2005593v3.d oc
result in similar or somewhat reduced impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.
Impacts related to airport and wildfire hazards would be the same under either scenario
because the Project Site remains the same.
For land use impacts, Alternative 2 would not result in any changes to the General Plan
land use designation or zoning for the Project Site and therefore would not have any
potential conflicts with existing City of Temecula land use policies or regulations. As with
the proposed Project, development of Alternative 2 would not result in the physical
division of an established community or conflict with a habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan. Impacts on land use would be similar to those
anticipated under the proposed Project because both Alternative 2 and the proposed
Project result in no land use significant impacts.
Construction noise under Alternative 2 would be similar, but the construction period
would be longer because it is a larger development. Operational traffic noise would be
less under Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed Project because traffic from
Alternative 2 would be less. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not include the noise
coming from the gas station, the fast-food restaurant and coffee shop drive-throughs,
and the car wash, which are considered the main source of Project Site operational
noise from the proposed Project. Overall, the Alternative 2 would have less of an impact
related to noise than the proposed Project because long-term operational noise would
be less.
' Population growth under Alternative 2 would be greater than under the proposed
Project. Alternative 2's office park would average approximately 191 square feet per
employee, which means it would employ approximately 1,003 persons. Assuming all of
the employees would be new to the City and that the average household size would be
the size of the employee's family, Alternative 2 would increase the city's resident
population by 3,250. This would represent an increase of 2.9 percent over the 2015
population and would not be considered a substantial increase in population as the
population increase is within the population capacity. Additionally, although some
government-related jobs require specialized employees who may need to move to the
area, many do not and the jobs would be filled by people already living in the area. As
such, the population would not increase by the theoretical 3,250 persons but by a much
lower amount. Neither the proposed Project nor Alternative 2 would remove housing or
displace persons, as there are no housing units on the Project Site. Thus, Alternative 2
would result in more population growth but would still result in a less than significant
impact and, therefore, would be similar to the proposed Project.
Alternative 2 would increase demand for public services and utilities as compared to the
proposed Project because it would have a greater development potential. However,
Alternative 2 would, like the proposed Project, result in less than significant impacts to
all of the public services and utilities even though it would have a greater physical
impact due to greater water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal
demand when compared to the proposed Project.
A-46
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
' Traffic generation under Alternative 2 would be reduced because of the nature of the
alternative office use. However, it cannot be determined whether Alternative 2's traffic
impact would also result in significant impacts to the intersections and roadway
segments that the proposed Project impacts because a full traffic study for Alternative 2
would be necessary. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would therefore result in fewer traffic-
and circulation-related impacts compared to the proposed Project.
Overall, Alternative 2 would result in increased impacts in areas such as air quality and
GHG emissions as compared to the proposed Project.
However, Alternative 2 fails to satisfy most of the Project Objectives. It would not
provide flexibility to allow a mix of commercial uses because it would result in one
governmental office use. Although the government office could be designed to be an
aesthetic entry statement, the use would diminish entry statement because it would not
serve passers-by. It would not develop any retail and community commercial services
and would not capture pass-by trips on 1-15 and Temecula Parkway.
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 would not fully meet the Project
Objectives; it is not the environmentally superior alternative, and does not avoid
significant environmental impacts.
The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an
independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2, and by itself, independent of any other
' reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 2.
C. ALTERNATIVE 3 — REDUCED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 3 would include all of the proposed uses of the proposed Project but would
reduce commercial/retail development by approximately 25 percent. Alternative 3 would
have a 12 position gas station and a car wash, a health and exercise club, retail uses,
offices, and restaurants. (See EIR, Table 4.0-1.) As with the proposed Project, this
alternative would require a General Plan Amendment and rezone to change the current
General Plan land use designation and zoning to a Planned Development Overlay
District.
Alternative 3 would, like the proposed Project, develop six parcels on the Project Site
with the same uses on each parcel, as follows: health and exercise club (Parcel 1), a
restaurant (Parcel 2), a gas station with a convenience store and second-story office
(Parcel 3), retail and a fast-food restaurant (Parcel 4), a coffee shop (Parcel 5), and
retail, offices and a fast food restaurant (Parcel 6). However, the building sizes for each
parcel would be reduced by about 25 percent, with the reductions focused on the
commercial/retail portions.
1 A-47
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
2. Reason for Reiecting Alternative
Environmental impacts in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and
Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources correlate primarily with the footprint of site
development because they relate to the location of a project and the development of
vacant land. The Project's impacts in these categories are all less than significant or
mitigated to less than significant. Impacts to these areas would be similar because of
construction-related impacts such as soil disturbance and other construction-related
intrusions even though the actual building footprint would be smaller. Operation of
Alternative 3 would result in the development of a currently vacant site for urban uses,
which would have similar potential impacts to biological resources, cultural resources,
and hydrology and water resources. In addition, geology impacts are based on location,
so similar projects would have similar results. Although Alternative 3 would have a
smaller building footprint, both projects would require land clearing and grading of
almost the entire site. In addition, geological impacts and mitigation measures would be
the same, as the buildings of Alternative 3 would have same potential for seismic,
landslide, liquefaction, and other geological impacts as the proposed Project. This
would result in the same impacts and require the same mitigation measures in these
impact categories. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have the same impact in these areas
when compared to the proposed Project.
For aesthetics, Alternative 3 would similarly result in a change to land that is currently
' vacant to commercial uses. Although the proposed Project would allow greater
development than Alternative 3, visual impacts under this alternative would be similar to
those of the proposed Project because the aesthetic scale of the projects would not be
substantially different. The height of Alternative 3's buildings would be limited by the
PDO-14 height restrictions, as it would for the proposed Project. Development of the
proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic resources.
Overall, like the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would result in a less than significant
impact to scenic resources and would therefore be similar to the proposed Project.
Air quality emissions are based on a project's size and the number of project-related
daily vehicle trips. Because Alternative 3 would be smaller in size and generate fewer
vehicle trips, it would have less air quality emissions. However, none of the proposed
Project's air quality emissions exceeded federal or state air quality thresholds, which
resulted in a less than significant impact in this area. Alternative 3's impact related to
exposure of sensitive land uses to stationary or mobile-source pollutant concentrations
would be similar to the proposed Project because this impact is related to project
location as well as to type of use. Thus, Alternative 3 would result in fewer emissions,
but it would similarly result in a less than significant impact requiring no mitigation.
Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Alternative 3 would exceed applicable
standards. Similar to the proposed Project, approximately 80 percent of these GHG
emissions are from mobile sources and there would be no feasible mitigation to reduce
this impact to a level that is less than significant. Although this alternative is a 25
percent smaller project, the reduction in size would not reduce GHG emissions to below
A-48
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
the applicable GHG thresholds. As such, Alternative 3 would also result in a
cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on any of the Project Site's parcels.
Alternative 3 would have the same potential for the release of hazardous materials
because the gas station, while smaller in the number of fueling stations, will still have
fuel storage tanks on-site. Further, the Alternative 3 parcels are the same, so this
alternative would have the same result regarding hazardous materials sites and hazards
from airports or wildfires. As such, Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would have a
similar impact to hazards and hazardous materials.
Land use impacts under Alternative 3 would be the same as under the proposed
Project. Alternative 3 would require the same changes to land use designations and
zoning. As with the proposed Project, development of Alternative 3 would not result in
the physical division of an established community or conflict with a habitat conservation
planning. Thus, impacts on land use would be the same as those anticipated under the
proposed Project and have a similar impact.
Construction noise under Alternative 3 would be similar. However, the construction
period would be shorter because it is a smaller project. Operational traffic noise reduced
under Alternative 3 as a result of reduced traffic. Overall, Alternative 3 would have less
of an impact related to noise than the proposed Project because long-term operational
noise would be less.
Population growth is based on the estimated number of employees for the proposed
Project compared to Alternative 3. The estimated number of employees under the
proposed Project is approximately 274 persons. An estimate of the number of
employees for Alternative 3 is approximately 207 persons. Temecula has a 2015
estimated population of 110,203 and an average household size of 3.24 persons per
household. Assuming all of the employees would be new to the city and Temecula's
average household size would be the size of the employee's family, Alternative 3 would
increase the city's population by 669. This would represent an increase of 0.6 percent
over the 2015 population and would not be considered a substantial increase in
population, as the population increase is within the population capacity. Additionally, it is
likely that most of the employees would be local due to the nature of the uses, so
population growth would likely be much lower than this estimate. Nonetheless, because
it reduces development, Alternative 3 would result in less population growth than the
proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant and therefore be similar to the
proposed Project. Neither the proposed Project nor Alternative 3 would remove housing
or displace persons, as there are no housing units on the Project Site.
Demand for public services and utilities would be less under Alternative 3 because
Alternative 3 would have less development potential than the proposed Project.
However, Alternative 3, like the proposed Project, would result in less than significant
impact to all of the public services and utilities.
A-49
11086-0006\2005593v3.doc
Alternative 3 would result in 4,410 daily vehicle trips, which is 1,470 fewer trips than the
proposed Project. It cannot be determined whether Alternative 3's traffic impact would
result in significant impacts to the intersections and roadway segments that the
proposed Project would impact without a full traffic impact study for Alternative 3.
Nonetheless, based on the reduced trip counts, Alternative 3 would result in fewer
traffic- and circulation-related impacts compared to the proposed Project.
Alternative 3 will have many of the same impacts as the proposed Project. Overall,
impacts would be reduced and Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative.
However, the reduced square footage will not allow Alternative 3 to achieve the benefits
of the Project Objectives.
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative
but would not fully achieve the benefits of the Project Objectives and does not avoid
significant environmental impacts.
The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an
independent ground for rejecting Alternative 3, and by itself, independent of any other
reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 3.
D. ALTERNATIVE 4 — NO HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER OR SIT-
DOWN RESTAURANT, WITH 175 ROOM HOTEL
1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 4 replaces the health and fitness center and sit-down restaurant located on
Parcels 1 and 2 with a 175-room, 122,578-square-foot hotel. All other uses would be the
same as the proposed Project. The hotel in Alternative 4, like the health and fitness
center and the sit-down restaurant, is a permitted use in PDO-14. This alternative was
chosen for analysis to determine if the alternative permitted use would have less
impacts on the environment than a combination of health and fitness center and sit-
down restaurant.
The hotel use in Alternative 4 would be required to provide 408 parking spaces as
compared to 165 parking spaces for the health and fitness center and restaurant in
proposed Project's. All other uses in Alternative 4 would be the same as those in the
proposed Project. This alternative would also require a General Plan Amendment and
rezone to change the current General Plan land use designation and zoning district to a
Planned Development Overlay District.
2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative
Environmental impacts in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and
Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources correlate primarily with the footprint of site
development because they relate to the location of a project and the development of
vacant land. The Project's impacts in these categories are all less than significant or
' mitigated to less than significant. Alternative 4, as with the proposed Project, would
require the development of the entire Project Site. The uses would be the same, except
A-50
11086-000612005593v3.doc
that Alternative 4 would exchange the proposed Project's the health and fitness center
and restaurant for a 175-room hotel and additional required parking. As such, land
clearing and grading would be the same for both projects. As a result, impacts would be
the same and require the same mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural
resources, and hydrology and water resources. Geological impacts and mitigation
measures would also be the same because the Alternative 4's buildings would have
same potential for seismic, landslide, liquefaction, and other geological impacts as the
proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have the same impact in these areas
when compared to the proposed Project.
Aesthetic impacts would be greater under Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would replace the
37,000-square-foot health and fitness center and the 8,000-square-foot restaurant with
a 122,578-square-foot hotel and required parking. As such, the size of the hotel and the
associated parking lot would be much larger than the proposed Project's health and
fitness center, sit-down restaurant, and required parking. In addition, Parcels 1 and 2
have a maximum building height of 75 feet, which is where Alternative 4's hotel would
be located. As such, the hotel would result in a substantial change in the overall scale
and bulk of the uses on Parcels 1 and 2. Impacts to aesthetics and visual resources
would be greater under Alternative 4 than under the proposed Project. The proposed
Project is environmentally superior to Alternative 4 with regard to aesthetics and visual
resources.
Alternative 4's hotel and required parking would not exceed any air quality threshold
during construction, but the emissions would be slightly higher than the proposed
Project's emissions in most categories. Operational air quality emissions for Alterative 4
at buildout would be greater than the proposed Project. However, these emissions
would, like the proposed Project, not exceed air quality thresholds and would therefore
be considered less than significant. Additionally, Alternative 4's impact related to
exposure of sensitive land uses to stationary or mobile-source pollutant concentrations
would be similar to the proposed Project because this impact is related to project
location as well as to type of use. Because Alternative 4 would not exceed any air
quality emission thresholds during construction or operations, impacts to air quality
under this alternative are similar to those of the proposed Project.
Greenhouse gas emissions would be greater under Alternative 4 because Alternative 4
is a larger development scenario. Approximately 80 percent of the proposed Project's
GHG emissions are from mobile sources with no feasible mitigation available. This
percentage would be similar under Alternative 4, so there would be no feasible
mitigation to reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Thus, GHG
emissions would be greater under Alternative 4 and would also result in a cumulatively
considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on any of the Project Site's parcels.
Alternative 4 would have the same potential for the release of hazardous materials
because of the gas station's fuel storage tanks. Thus, Alternative 4 and the proposed
Project would have a similar impact to hazards and hazardous materials.
A-51
11086-000612005593v3.doc
Alternative 4 would require the same changes to the General Plan land use
designations and zoning as the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project,
development of Alternative 4 would not result in the physical division of an established
community or conflict with a habitat conservation planning. Impacts on land use would
be the same as those anticipated under the proposed Project.
Construction noise under Alternative 4 be construction, but the construction period
would be longer because it is a larger development. Traffic noise during operations
would be less than with the proposed Project because traffic from Alternative 4 would
be less even it is greater in size than the proposed Project. Thus, Alternative 4 would
have less of an impact on noise than the proposed Project because long-term
operational noise would be less.
Population growth is based on the estimated number of employees for the proposed
Project, as compared to Alternative 4. The number of employees for Alternative 4 is
estimated at about 235 persons. Temecula has a 2015 estimated population of 110,203
and an average household size of 3.24 persons per household. Assuming all
employees would be new to the city and the average household size would be the size
of the employee's family, Alternative 4 would increase the city's resident population by
761. This would represent an increase of 0.7 percent over the 2015 population and
would not be considered a substantial increase in population. Like the proposed Project,
most of the employees would be local because of the type of employment. As such,
population growth would be even less than these estimates. Alternative 4 would result in
less population growth than the proposed Project and would result in a less than
significant impact and therefore be similar to the proposed Project. Neither the proposed
Project nor Alternative 4 would remove housing or displace persons, as there are no
housing units on the Project Site.
Demand for public services and utilities would be greater under Alternative 4 than under
the proposed Project because Alternative 4 would have more development potential
than the proposed Project. However, Alternative 4, like the proposed Project, would
result in less than significant impacts to all of the public services and utilities.
Transportation and circulation impacts would be reduced under Alternative 4. Inclusion
of the hotel instead of the fitness center and restaurant reduces daily vehicle trips by
400. Alternative 4 would generate approximately 8,413 gross daily vehicle trips and
5,480 net daily vehicle trips. The proposed Project's traffic generation is greater than
Alternative 4's traffic generation. However, it cannot be determined whether this
alternative's traffic impact would also result in significant impacts to those intersections
and roadway segments that the proposed Project impacts without a full traffic study for
the alternative. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would result in fewer traffic- and circulation-
related impacts compared to the proposed Project.
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 4 would not fully meet the Project
objectives; it is not the environmentally superior alternative; and does not avoid
significant environmental impacts.
A-52
11086-0006WO55930.doc
The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an
independent ground for rejecting Alternative 4, and by itself, independent of any other
reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 4.
A-53
11 086-0006\2005 5930.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA GATEWAY PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2015061086
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CA 92590
AUGUST 2016
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
1. INTRODUCTION
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Temecula
Gateway project. An MMRP is required for the proposed project because the EIR has identified
significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts. This
MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code,
which requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes
made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment."
2. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As the lead agency, the City of Temecula will be responsible for monitoring compliance with all
mitigation measures. Different City departments are responsible for various aspects of the
project. The MMRP identifies the department with the responsibility for ensuring the measure is
completed; however, it is expected that one or more departments will coordinate efforts to
ensure compliance.
The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP
are described briefly below.
• Mitigation Measure: The mitigation measures are taken from the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), in the some order they appear in the EIR.
' • Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project the mitigation must be completed.
• Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the department in the City with responsibility for
mitigation monitoring.
• Verification (Date and Initials): Provides a contact who reviewed the mitigation measure
and the date the measure was determined complete.
City of Temecula Temecula Gateway Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA GATEWAY PROJECT
Mitigation.Measure - - Timing--- Date and
Monitoring'
Responsibility
.Initials)
3.2 Air Quality - - - - -
MM 3.2.6 Air quality—sensitive land uses (as defined by the SCAQMD Prior to issuance of building permit City of Temecula
and CARB) proposed within 500 feet of Interstate 15 (not for uses within 500 feet of I-15 Community
including non-sensitive components, such as parking lots) Development
shall be required to prepare a health risk assessment (HRA). Department
Based on the findings in the HRA, appropriate measures shall
be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer risk resulting from
TAC exposure from Interstate 15 to below 10 in one million
for the maximally exposed individual. These measures may
include, but are not limited to, implementation of air
filtration/purification systems at the sensitive land use. Such
air filtration/purification systems can be installed and
maintained either on an individual unit-by-unit basis, with
individual air intake and exhaust ducts ventilating portions of
the new sensitive land use separately, or through a centralized
building ventilation system, whichever is more appropriate.
The ventilation system must be certified to achieve a
performance effectiveness as determined in the HRA; for
example, to remove at least 85 percent of ambient PM2.5
concentrations from indoor areas. Air intakes must be
oriented away from emission sources areas, such as Interstate
15. Users may factor in the amount of time that receptors
spend indoors versus out-of-doors to account for air filtration
systems in modeling, provided that all assumptions are
justified with scientific documentation.
Temecula Gateway Project City of Temecula
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Verification
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure Timing - (Date and
Responsibility
Initials)
3.3 Biological Resources
MM 3.3.1 MSHCP Fees. The applicant shall pay applicable Local Prior to the initiation of construction City of Temecula
Development Mitigation fees, as established and required by activities Community
the Regional Conservation Authority and City of Temecula, for Development
continued implementation of the Western Riverside County Department
MSHCP.
MM 3.3.2a Migratory Bird Surveys. If clearing and/or Prior to the initiation of construction City of Temecula
construction activities occur during the nesting season (January 15— activities Community
August 31), preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors, special- Development
status resident birds, and other migratory birds protected by the Department
Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist,
up to 3 days before initiation of construction activities. The qualified
biologist shall survey the construction zone and a 250-foot radius
surrounding the construction zone to determine whether the
activities taking place have the potential to disturb or otherwise
harm nesting birds.
If an active nest is located within 100 feet (2S0 feet for raptors) of
construction activities, the project applicant shall establish an
exclusion zone (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum
radius of 100 feet or 250 feet, as appropriate, around the nest).
Alternative exclusion zones may be established through consultation
with the CDFW and the USFWS, as necessary. The City shall be
notified if altered exclusion zones widths are authorized by these
agencies prior to the initiation of work. The exclusion zones shall
remain in force until all young have fledged.
MM 3.3.2b Per MSHCP Species-Specific Objective 6, preconstruction Within 30 days prior to any City of Temecula
presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl on the project site, vegetation removal or ground- Community
where suitable habitat is present, will be conducted for all covered disturbing activities Development
activities throughout construction. Surveys will be conducted within Department
30 days prior to disturbance. If no potential burrows are identified,
no further surveys are required.Take of active nests will be avoided.
If construction is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after
City of Temecula Temecula Gateway Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
3
r r■ rr
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitiation Verification
'Monitoring
g Measure Timing . (Date and
Responsibility, Initials)
the survey, the area shall be resurveyed.
Surveys shall be completed for occupied burrowing owl burrows in
all construction areas and within 500 feet(150 meters) of the project
work areas (where possible and appropriate based on habitat). All
occupied burrows will be mapped on an aerial photo.
If burrowing owls are found to be present on-site, the project
applicant shall develop a conservation strategy in cooperation with
the CDFW, the USFWS, and the Regional Conservation Authority in
accordance with the CDFW's (2012) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation.
3.5 Cultural Resources
MM 3.5.2a Prior to beginning project construction, the project applicant shall Prior to construction activities City of Temecula
retain a City of Temecula-approved archaeologist to monitor all Community
ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown Development
archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource Department
deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation in
consultation with the Pechanga Tribe.
This mitigation measure shall be incorporated in all construction
contract documentation.
MM 3.5.2b The qualified archeologist or an archaeologist working under the Prior to construction activities City of Temecula
direction of the qualified archeologist, along a representative Community
designated by the Pechanga Tribe, shall conduct pre-construction Development
cultural resources worker sensitivity training to inform construction Department
personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be
encountered, and to bring awareness to personnel of actions to be
taken in the event of a cultural resources discovery. The applicant
shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and
shall attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating
attendance.
MM 3.5.2c At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the project At least 30 days prior to City of Temecula
Temecula Gateway Project City of Temecula
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4
rr r• r
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Monitoring Vehification
Mitigation Measure Timing (Date and
. Responsibility,
• Initials)
applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the tribe of commencement of construction Community
grading, excavation, and the monitoring program, and to develop a activities Development -
Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement between Department
the applicant/developer and the tribe. The agreement shall address
the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation of
responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American
tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing
activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of
compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition
of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains
discovered on the site.
MM 3.5.2d Prior to beginning project construction, the project archaeologist Prior to commencement of City of Temecula
shall file a pre-grading report with the City of Temecula (if required) construction activities Community
to document the proposed methodology for grading activity Development
observation which will be determined in consultation with the Department
Pechanga Tribe. Said methodology shall include the requirement for
a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the
authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with
the agreement required in mitigation measure MM 3.5.2c, the
archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will
be exercised in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe in order to
evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered
on the property. Tribal and archaeological monitors shall be allowed
to monitor all grading, excavation, and groundbreaking activities,
and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading
activities.
MM 3.5.2e All cultural materials which are collected during the grading During construction activities City of Temecula
monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studies or Community
excavations on the project site, with the exception of sacred items, Development
burial goods, and human remains, which will be addressed In the Department
Treatment Agreement required in mitigation measure MM 3.5.2c,
shall be tribally curated according to the current professional
repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be
City of Temecula Temecula Gateway Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
- Monitoring Mitigation Measure Timing (Date and
Responsibility.
Initials)r
transferred, including title, to the Pechanga Tribe's curation facility
which meets the standards set forth in 35 CRF Part 79 for federal
repositories. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the
project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred
mitigation, if feasible.
MM 3.5.2f If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural During construction activities City of Temecula
resources are discovered during grading, the developer, the project Community
archaeologist, and the tribe shall assess the significance of such Development
resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for Department
such resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section
21083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for
archaeological resources.If the developer, the project archaeologist,
and the tribe cannot agree on the significance of the mitigation for
such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning
Director of the City of Temecula for decision. The Planning Director
shall make the determination based on the previsions of the
California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological
resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs,
and practices of the tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available
under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be
appealable to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council.
MM 3.5.3 If subsurface deposits believed to be of paleontological significance During ground-disturbing City of Temecula
are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 50- construction activities Community
foot radius of the discovery. An on-site paleontological monitor Development
meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Department
Standards for paleontology shall be retained by the project applicant
and shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to evaluate the
significance of the find. Work cannot continue at the discovery site
until the paleontologist conducts sufficient research and data
collection to make a determination that the resource is either not a
paleontological resource or not potentially significant.If a potentially
eligible resource is encountered, the paleontologist, the City of
Temecula and the project proponent shall arrange for either(1)total
Temecula Gateway Project City of Temecula
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
6
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Verification
'Mitigation Measure Timing'. (Date and
Monitoring
Responsibility.
Initials)
avoidance of the resource, if possible, or (2) test excavations to
evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery as mitigation.
The determination shall be formally documented in writing and
submitted to the City as verification that the provisions in CEQA for
managing unanticipated discoveries have been met.
MM 3.5.4 If human remains are encountered,California Health and Safety Code During ground-disturbing City of Temecula
Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until construction activities Community
the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to Development
origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section Department
5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance
until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been
made.If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be
Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be
contacted within a reasonable time frame. Subsequently, the Native
American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely
descendant" within 24 hours of receiving notification from the
coroner. The most likely descendant shall then have 48 hours to
make recommendations and engage in consultations concerning the
treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98.
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
MM 3.8.1a The project developer shall comply with the NPDES Construction Prior to and during construction City of Temecula
General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as not to violate Community
any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Development
Compliance with the Construction General Permit would include Department
filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a
SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and
sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff.
MM 3.8.1b As a condition of approval, the project will be required to generate a Prior to and during construction City of Temecula
project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as Community
required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as Development
specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. Department
City of Temecula Temecula Gateway Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
7
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
' Verification
-Mitigation Measure � � '- Timing -, Monitoring (Date!and
Responsibility
'Initials)
Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include scheduling,
minimization of vegetation disturbance, sandbags, vehicle fueling
and maintenance in designated areas, and storm drain stenciling.
This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula
prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
3.10 Noise
MM 3.10.1a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall During construction activities City of Temecula
submit a construction-related noise control plan to the City for Community
review and approval.The plan shall: Development
• Depict the location of construction equipment staging areas. Department
• Require that construction contractors equip construction
equipment (fixed or mobile) with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers'standards.
• Require that the construction contractor place stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away
from the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
• Describe other noise control measures that will be implemented
during project-related construction activities. Barriers such as
plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains shall be
erected around the project site to minimize the amount of noise
on the surrounding offsite sensitive receptors to the maximum
extent feasible during construction.
The construction supervisor shall ensure compliance with the noise
control plan, and the City shall conduct periodic inspection at its
discretion.
MM 3.10.1b The construction supervisor shall provide written notification of During construction activities City of Temecula
planned activities to the City of Temecula and to each of the Community
property owners located along Vallejo Avenue a minimum of 15 days Development
prior to commencement of each phase of construction. Department
MM 3.10.1c The construction supervisor shall maintain a complaint log noting During construction activities City of Temecula
date, time, complainant's name, nature of the complaint, and any Community
Temecula Gateway Project City of Temecula
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
8
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
- Monitoring^ Verification
Mitigation Measure Timing (Date'and
` ... '
Responsibility
rh
ility Initials)
corrective action taken. A copy of the complaint log shall be Development
provided to the City on a daily basis. The project manager shall Department
publish and distribute to the potentially affected community, a
phone number that is attended during active construction working
hours for use by the disturbed public to register complaints.
3.13 Transportation and Circulation
MM 3.13.1a La Paz Road/Ynez Road Intersection. The project applicant shall Prior to construction City of Temecula
contribute fair share funding toward either a traffic signal or a Community
roundabout (with one lane on all approaches) at the La Paz Development
Road/Ynez Road intersection. Department and
Public Works
Department
MM 3.13.161-15 Southbound and Northbound Ramps at Temecula Parkway. Prior to construction City of Temecula
The I-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange Improvement Project is fully Community
funded and construction is scheduled to be completed by 2017. To Development
mitigate the identified significant impacts at these ramps, the project Department and
applicant shall pay required fees to the Riverside County Public Works
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, which is Department
used to fund projects that improve vehicle circulation in the region.
MM 3.13.3 The project applicant shall construct the following roadway Prior to occupancy City of Temecula
improvements: Community
Northbound(from Bedford Court) Development
• One left turn lane and one shared through/right turn lane;and Department and
Public Works
• Protected left turn phasing. Department
Southbound (from Gateway Drive)
• Two left turn lanes (limited to 110 feet in length due to location
of on-site driveways);
• One shared through/right turn lane;and
• Protected left turn phasing.
Eastbound (from Temecula Parkway)
City of Temecula Temecula Gateway Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
9
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MitigationMeasure Monitoring•
Timing t'e and
- Responsibility.
- .'Initials)
• One left turn lane with minimum stacking length of
220 feet.
MM 3.13.6 La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway. The project applicant shall Prior to construction City of Temecula
contribute fair share funding to restripe the southbound La Paz Road Community
approach from one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right Development
turn lane to consist of dual left turn lanes,one through lane,and one Department and
right turn lane. Additionally, a "keep clear" zone shall be painted on Public Works
the pavement at the intersection to avoid southbound queuing from Department
blocking access to or from Vallejo Avenue and the planned park-
and-ride facility located at the southeast corner of La Paz Road and
Vallejo Avenue.
MM 3.13.8a La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway. The project applicant shall Prior to construction City of Temecula
contribute fair share funding toward the construction of a dedicated Community
westbound right turn lane with a minimum stacking length of 250 Development
feet. Department and
Public Works
Department
MM 3.13.8b Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway. The project applicant shall Prior to construction City of Temecula
contribute fair share funding to restripe the General Plan Circulation Community
Element improvement on westbound Temecula Parkway to provide Development
the following lane geometrics: Department and
• 3 westbound left turn lanes;and Public Works
• 3 westbound through lanes.
Department
MM 3.13.8c ledediah Smith Road/Temecula Parkway. The project applicant Prior to construction City of Temecula
shall contribute fair share funding toward the installation of a right Community
turn overlap at the southbound approach of the intersection. Development
Department and
Public Works
Department
Temecula Gateway Project City of Temecula
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
10
' Exhibit C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in
connection with the proposed approval of the Temecula Gateway Project (the "Project').
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic,
legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of
the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered
acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the
specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are
unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or
elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project
despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the
Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to Greenhouse Gases
' (GHGs), Noise, and Transportation/Circulation generated by the Project. In making this
finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable
impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City
Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the
other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable
environmental impacts of the Project.
A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have
been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent
feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they
generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are
otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Findings and
Facts in Support of Findings.
B. The Project will provide high quality commercial development that will
provide additional services to residents on the southern end of the City, commuters
utilizing 1-15, and the soon to be completed Park-and-Ride located immediately across
La Paz Road.
C. Leaving the Project area with its current General Plan and Zoning
designation of Professional Office (PO) would not be consistent with the goals of the
' recently adopted Uptown Temecula Specific Plan (UTSP). The UTSP is intended to
11086-0006\2007396v1.doc
' allow higher density urban development so that it can become the City's financial and
office district. The UTSP provides development standards that are well suited for office
projects that can attract large high-quality employers, financial and wealth management
institutions, as well as high-technology firms, among others. As such, the UTSP is
intended to create a prominent employment cluster and financial district for the City of
Temecula. Revising the General Plan and Zoning designation of the Project Site to
Community Commercial (CC) will allow the Project area to be consistent with the overall
commercial character of the Temecula Parkway corridor and will help further the goals
of the Uptown Specific Plan by discouraging a large scale office project from being
proposed for the Project location rather than within the UTSP area.
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the
Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council
further finds that each of the Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be
acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing
alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental
impacts.
-2-
11086-0006\2007396v Ldoc