Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-070 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 01 -70 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN CITY LIMITS (PLANNING APPLICATION 00-0189) Statement of Findings of Fact Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15091 For the Harveston Specific Plan WHEREAS, the Harveston Specific Plan and related actions ("Specific Plan"), initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Harveston Specific Plan proposes the development of a 549.5-acre planned community in the City of Temecula. The Project site is located adjacent to and east of interstate 15 Freeway (I-15) in the City of Temecula, California, in southwest Riverside County, south of the City of Los Angeles and north of the City of San Diego. From the 1-15, direct access to the project site is provided by Winchester Road (Highway 79 North) and Ynez Road, both located near the southern boundary of the site, and Margarita Road, which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. Winchester Road runs near the southern edge of the project site and continues north adjacent to Chaparral High School. The proposed Specific Plan is divided into 12 planning areas in an effort to create a distinct cluster of future uses/activities and to identify potential time frames for individual project development to occur in a timely manner, within the overall Specific Plan concept. The Harveston Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 1,921 dwelling units (1,621 single family and 300 multi family rental units). The project will consist of 150.9 acres of Iow medium density residential (3-5 du/acre), 79.1 acres of medium 1 density residential {5-7 du/acre), 60.0 acres of medium 2 density residential (7-13 du/acre), and 16.8 acres of high-density residential (13-20 du/acre). Other components of the project include a 13-acre mixed-use zone overlaying area designated as village center, which allows uses such as retail, restaurant, office, daycare, worship, and private clubhouse; a 112.5-acre service commercial area; a 16.5-acre community park, a 12.0-acre elementary school; a 17.3-acre lake/lake park; a 1.8-acre village green; 60.2- acre of major streets and slopes, and two 1.3 and 2.5-acre excluded parcels (Specific Plan, p. 3-5 through 3-10). WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was issued on April 1, 1999, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082; and, R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 WHEREAS, written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of Specific Plan implementation pursuant to CEQA; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated November 2, 2000, the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research in November 2, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at City offices; and, WHEREAS, during and before the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received 14 written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"); and, WHEREAS, on November 1, 2000, December 20, 2000, January 17, 2001, and January 31, 2001, Planning Commission workshops and on January 24, 2001 and January 27, 2001, Community Workshops were conducted to provide information about the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentors on February, 2001; and, WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 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; and, R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Specific Plan will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the Planning Commission finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 hereof; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the Planning Commission finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and Specific Plan and set forth herein are described in Section 3 hereof; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 4 hereof, and, WHEREAS, alternatives to the Specific Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 5; and, WHEREAS, a discussion of Specific Plan benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Section 6 hereof; and, WHEREAS, 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; and, WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Specific Plan and related actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring cimulation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the Final EIR require additional public review because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby determines the following: R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 3 Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan will have a less than significant impact through the Initial Study: A. Agricultural Resoumes. According to the General Plan, the project site is considered farmland of local importance; however, it is not considered prime or unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide Importance pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resoumes Agency. The site currently is not zoned for agriculture use, is not under a Williamson Act Contract, nor is it located within an Agricultural Preserve. None of the surrounding properties support long-term productive agricultural activities (Initial Study, p. 5). B. Mineral Resources. No mineral resources are known to occur within the project boundaries (Initial Study, p. 10). C. Population/Housing/Employment. The buildout of the Harveston Specific Plan is accounted for in the General Plan and future growth scenarios for the City. However, there will be extensions of infrastructure associated with this project. The project will serve as an attractor for additional growth in the local area or region. Population The proposed project will provide a maximum of 1,921 new housing units in the City of Temecula. Based on the current population generation factor (Temecula Subdivision Ordinance) of 2.85 persons per single family unit and 2.43 persons per multi-family unit, the project is expected to generate a residential population of 5,349 new residents (Draft EIR, p. 5- 164). The proposed project is consistent with the regional population projections of the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) and does not exceed the 6,205 persons forecasted by SCAG for the project, as set forth in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Subregional Comprehensive Plan prepared by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) (Final EIR, p. 2-20). According to the General Plan, at buildout, the area within the City limits will have 39,658 dwelling units and a population of 112,254 persons. By providing 5,349 persons, the project will enable the City to provide housing to meet the needs of this expected population growth. Therefore, the level of population generation is consistent with the General Plan and is not considered significant. Housing The project will add 1,921 dwelling units to the City's existing housing stock. The project is consistent with the City's land use policies contained in the City of Temecula General Plan. The project proposes single family and multi-family units with a range of different densities, which will provide housing opportunities for a range of people. The provision of housing of this type is consistent with the City's objective to encourage the provision of adequate sites for housing (City of Temecula, 1994-1999 Housing Element, p. 4-42). In addition, the development of the housing units proposed in the project would help the City to achieve its 1998-2005 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number as determined by SCAG and WRCOG. The RHNA is a key tool for SCAG and WRCOG to plan for projected growth in the region. As specified by the RHNA, the City of Temecula has a projected housing need for 7,798 housing units during the 1998-2005 period (WRCOG, July 23, 1999). Since the project is consistent with R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 4 the Temecula General Plan City land use policies, impact will be less than significant (Final EIR, p. 2-20). Employment In a regional context, the Harveston site lies within the WRCOG Subregion, which is defined by SCAG to be housing-rich and jobs-poor (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, SCAG, 1994). SCAG projects a jobs/housing ratio of 0.99 for the year 2015. The project is expected to create 1,400 jobs in the service commercial and neighborhood mixed uses (i.e., retail, restaurant, etc.) within the Mixed Use Village Center. Although the project will result in the development of residential units in an already housing-rich subregion, SCAG projects a housing-rich ratio for the subregion in 2015. Therefore, the project is is not in conflict with the SCAG projections. Additionally, SCAG's regional growth management policies are based on the adopted General Plan development projections. As discussed above, the Harveston project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. Furthermore, according to the General Plan EIR, the jobs/housing balance is measured on a citywide basis rather than a project specific basis, and as a whole, Temecula's land use policy works toward achieving regional jobs/housing goals (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, p. 199). Implementation of the Specific Plan project would be growth-inducing in terms of a localized employment increase. However, the increase in local employment is a major goal of the City's General Plan (Draft EIR, p. 7-1 ). Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts associated with the Harveston Specific Plan will have a less than significant impact through the EIR and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures: A. Land Use Compatibility. The 549.5-acre site currently consists of vacant land once used for cattle and sheep grazing. The proposed Harveston project site is surrounded by existing and proposed/approved developments (Draft EIR, p.5-3). The proposed project will result in the development of single family residential, multi family residential, service commercial, retail commercial, community park, lake, lake park, trails, and school site, which will establish new land use relationships with adjacent land uses. These uses proposed are consistent with the density and intensities of the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Plan (Draft EIR, p.5-14). Due to the overall design of the proposed Harveston project, no significant impact, including on- and off-site land use relationships, were identified in this area (Draft EIR, p. 5-15 and 5-18). The proposed project will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the City of Temecula General Plan. Additionally, no impacts to the City of Temecula Development Code are anticipated (Draft EIR, p. 5-19 through 5-23). The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to the cumulative impact of development in the area. R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 5 However, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, City Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance and Citywide design guidelines. Therefore, no significant cumulative land use consistency impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 5-3). B. Transportation and Circulation - Emergency Access and Parking Emergency Access The proposed project will improve local circulation (including emergency access) as well as access to nearby uses by providing needed roadway and intersection improvements. The circulation portion of the Specific Plan will help provide adequate access for local residents and emergency vehicles. Parking The proposed public facilities (e.g., parks, schools) will provide adequate onsite parking, so no offsite parking should be impacted. The circulation portion of the Specific Plan will provide for adequate parking both in terms of numbers of spaces and location. There will be no construction parking on adjacent streets; therefore, offsite parking impacts would not be significant. C. Air Quality. Construction activities generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from paints, solvents, asphalt, roofing tar and other coatings. Through compliance with SCAQMD regulations on paint volatility, and with the anticipated rate of project completion, ROGNOC emission impacts will be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5- 98). Through compliance with SCAQMD regulations on paint volatility, and with the anticipated rate of project completion, the project's incremental contribution to ROG / VOC emission impacts will be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). D. Noise. The project noise impact study indicated that off-site noise impacts will be individually and cumulatively less than significant. Additionally, the noise impacts on the site from the French Valley Airport are considered to be less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-120). E. Biological Resources. 1. Potential Project Impacts to Biological Resources (General Impacts). Implementation of the proposed project would not remove or alter any significant natural or native vegetation formations on the property because they do not currently exist on site. The site contains no natural wetland habitat or other sensitive natural assemblages. No natural plant communities or natural populations of native species would be affected, directly or indirectly, by the proposed development. The project would generate no direct significant adverse impacts to natural wildlife habitats on a local or regional scale (Draft EIR, p. 5-155). At least one native raptorial bird species, the red-tailed hawk, uses the site as foraging habitat. However, foraging habitat for raptor species is not regionally unique, therefore the loss of this resource would not be considered a significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 5-156). 2. Impacts to Sensitive Species. No sensitive (rare or endangered) plant, invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal species are known or expected to reside within, or occur in a resource-dependant relationship with, any portion of the overall site. Although the proposed project occurs within the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Area, this R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 6 species is highly unlikely to occur onsite and implementation of the SKR mitigation fees will reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant. Additionally, the focused survey for the QCB revealed that there are no QCB occurring on this parcel and therefore no impacts from development would occur (Draft EIR, p. 5-156). The proposed project will not result in impacts to sensitive (rare or endangered) plant or animal species as none has been identified as occurring onsite (Draft EiR, p.5-157). F. Cumulative Impacts (Land Use, Aesthetics and Geology) The Temecula General Plan EIR examined impacts associated with build out within the corporate city limits, its sphere of influence, and a larger "area of interest." The Harveston Specific Plan is accounted for within the total unit count. Regional growth plans were also examined in evaluating cumulative impacts on a regional basis (Final EIR, p. 2-20). The General Plan policies and standards which serve as mitigation measures for the potential cumulative effects of all development under the General Plan have been applied to the Harveston Specific Plan whenever applicable. Among the many General Plan policies applied to the Harveston Specific Plan are the following (Final EIR, p. 2-20 and Specific Plan, Appendix A): Incorporating the village concept into large master-planned developments; Providing development standards that ensure high quality design; Incorporating pedestrian and bicycle trails into project design; Providing adequate circulation improvements to suppor/the level of development proposed; and Establishing setbacks along Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zones; The incorporation of the General Plan policies and standards in the Specific Plan from the start have ensured that land use, aesthetic and geology cumulative impacts associated with the development are less than significant (Specific Plan, Appendix A). Land Use The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to the cumulative impact of development in the area. The potential development of the project is consistent with the City of Temecula General PLan, City of Temecula Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance and Citywide Design Guidelines. No significant cumulative land use consistency impacts are anticipated (Draft EIR, p. 5-23). Aesthetics The project in conjunction with other proposed or on-going projects occur within an urbanizing area. The City of Temecula General Plan designates the area for urban uses. Development will result in changes to the appearance of the landscape as viewed from public reads. Proposed cumulative development will also contribute to cumulative night lighting and daytime glare and reflective impacts. Because the proposed development is a master planned community with detailed Specific Plan Design Guidelines and is anticipated by the General R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 7 Plan, and it is a continuation of existing land use patterns, the project's incremental cumulative aesthetic impact is not considered significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-31) Geology and Soils Generally, geotechnical issues are sit-specific and will be limited to within the development boundaries of the Specific Plan site; therefore, no cumulative geotechnical impacts are anticipated (Draft EIR, p. 5-131). Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR have been incorporated into the Harveston Specific Plan that avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Specific Plan Draft Ell:{ to a less than significant level. The potentially significant project impacts and the mitigation measures which have been adopted to mitigate them to a less than significant level are as follows: A. Aesthetics / Light and Glare 1. Potential Significant Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped. Implementation of the Harveston project will alter the aesthetic character of the area. The project's development could potentially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding; however, the proposed project includes features, which help avoid potential aesthetic impacts. These features include consideration of residential planned development with comprehensive landscaping plans, and other site design proposals (i.e., expanded landscaped parkways along the perimeter roadways and aesthetically pleasing wall treatments) which will minimize the aesthetic impacts of the project (Draft EIR, p.5-30). Aesthetic compatibility and light pollution are potentially significant impacts. While the Specific Plan includes provisions to ensure quality design and compatibility, ongoing review and monitoring will be required to avoid potential impact. The proposed community park will include ball fields and lighting associated with sporting activities. The "sky glow" condition emanating from the proposed development may impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. A potential exists for a significant aesthetic impact if the project results in substantial light and glare (Draft EIR, p. 2-3,4) 2, Findings. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level: a. During development plan review process, all architectural and landscape design plans and plant palettes shall be reviewed and approved by the City. (Draft EIR, p.5-32) b. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2, the community park lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Services Director as part of the review process of the construction plans. (Draft EIR, p. 5-32) c. The Master Developer shall provide the prospective homebuyers a notice that the 16-acre community park will include sports field lighting for evening use. Proof of this notification shall be provided to the Planning Director prior issuance of building permits. (Draft EIR, p.5-32) R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 8 d. In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mt. Palomar Observatory, all lighting shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of Iow pressure sodium vapor lamps; shielding to prevent upward illumination; and compliance with the Ordinance No. 655. (Draft EIR, p.5-32) 3. Supporting Explanation. The following details from the Draft EIR and Specific Plan illustrate that the project will not have any significant impact upon aesthetics and that any potential aesthetic impact will be reduced to a less than significant level through requirements and standards in the Specific Plan and the mitigation measure identified above: The proposed Harveston project shall comply with the applicable codes and standards including the California building Code, Uniform Fire Code, etc. Compliance with the City's standards shall assure safe utilization of the facilities at night by the public (Draft EIR, p. 5-32). With implementation of the above mitigation measures, no significant impacts related to aesthetics and light and glare are anticipated (Draft EIR, p. 5-32). B. Transportation / Cimulation 1. Potentially Significant Impact Phase 1-2002 Scenario: Under this scenario there will be an increase in traffic levels. At Phase I buildout the project is anticipated to generate approximately 12,515 trips per day (Draft EIR, p. 5-43). When project-related traffic is added to the 2002 background traffic, all of the study intersections are found to operate at Level of Service D or better except for the two intersections, Winchester Road/Ynez Road and Winchester Road/Margarita Road. This is considered a significant impact. Intersection improvements have been identified that would allow Level of Service D or better to be maintained at both intersections and reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The additional left-turn opportunity would also improve the current operation of both intersections. Please refer to Mitigation Measure 1 below in Section 3.2.2, which requires the project's implementation of these intersection improvements (Draft EIR, p.5-45). In addition to improvements proposed at the two intersections mentioned above, the Phase I project traffic generated by the Harveston project would require additional intersection and roadway improvements in order to achieve acceptable service levels. The onsite roadway improvements (see Mitigation Measures 2a and 2b) are part of the Harveston project's Circulation Plan (Draft EIR, P. 5-50). Project Buildout - 2005 Scenario: Under this scenario there will be an increase in traffic levels. Based on the assumed land uses, the entire project (both components) would generate approximately 41,767 daily vehicle trips. It should be noted that at project buildout the residential planned community component of the Specific Plan generates 17,678 daily trips or 42% of the total 41,767 daily trips and the service commemial component generates 24,089 daily trips or 58% of the total daily trips (Draft EIR, p. 5-41). The HCM analysis indicates that with the project, a total of ten off-site intersections would result in a level of Service F during one or both of the peak hours. Since the project's traffic contributes incrementally to this cumulative impact, it will be responsible for its fair-share of the improvements. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 below in Section 3.2.2, the project's incremental impact can be reduced to a less than significant level (Draft EIR, p. 5-60). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 9 In addition to the off-site intersection improvements, the 2005 with project build-out scenario will require the additional intersection and roadway improvements in the immediate project vicinity to accommodate project traffic access and to achieve acceptable service levels. The on-site roadway improvements (see Mitigation Measures 4a and 4b) are part of the Harveston project's Circulation Plan (Draft EIR, p. 5-74). The impact is mitigated with project improvements and mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 3 through 5) (Draft EIR, p.5-82 and 83). Additionally, the currently adopted Temecula Cimulation Plan is no longer consistent with the adopted City of Murrieta Circulation Plan which shows a Cherry Street alignment. Although the project site plan evaluated in this Traffic Impact Analysis proposes a circulation system, which is consistent with the currently adopted Circulation Plan for Temecula, the onsite circulation could be easily modified to accommodate and facilitate implementation of the Alternative Draft Proposed Circulation Plan if it is adopted. The modifications necessary to provide consistency with the Draft Circulation Plan would not measurably alter the offsite impacts and improvement needs that have been identified in the EIR Traffic section. Because the adoption of the City's Draft Proposed Circulation Plan may occur subsequent to the City's action on the proposed project, Mitigation Measure 6 has been proposed to ensure that the Harveston project's implementation would not prevent implementation of the City's Draft Circulation Plan (Draft EIR, p. 5-77). Traffic Demand and Systems Management The existing site does not now provide alternative transportation opportunities for area residents. The circulation portion of the Specific Plan will provide for alternate transportation opportunities. The project site does not presently provide access for pedestrians or bicyclists due to its unimproved condition and isolated location. The circulation plan of the Specific Plan provides both pedestrian and bicycle circulation for area residents as well as project visitors. This proposed network of sidewalks and trails will provide non-vehicular access to the service commercial area, onsite and offsite schools, the extensive park and recreation system and the mixed use Village Center. The proposed sidewalks and Class II bike lanes on Margarita Road will eventually allow non-vehicular access offsite, and will tie into trails along Santa Gertrudis Creek. A separate transit plan, bicycle plan and open space / recreation plan (which includes trails) have all been included in the Specific Plan. Mitigation Measures 7 through 9 will help reduce vehicle trips and traffic congestion (Draft EIR, p. 5-76). 2. Findings. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce Phase I project traffic impacts to a less than significant level: Phase I Scenario - Year 2002 a. Prior to issuance of 1st occupancy permit for Phase I Residential and 1st occupancy permit for Phase I service commercial, the developer(s) shall implement the improvements for intersections 28, 29, 30A, 30B and 31 outlined in Table 6, Exhibits 26A-26C of this EIR, and listed below. Prior to issuance of 326th occupancy permits for the Phase I Residential and more than 8 acres of Phase I Service Commercial development (i.e. the southern portion of Planning Area 12), the developer(s) shall implement the improvements for intersections 4 and 5 outlined in Table 6, Exhibits 26A-26C of this EIR, and listed below. City may review and adopt a funding mechanism for the improvement costs above the Project percentage for flair share" consistent with Section 12.3 of the Specific Plan, the "Financing Mechanism". R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 10 Intersection Improvement Needs 2002 With Project Phase I ID No. I Intersection I Improvements I Project % Prior to issuance of Is~ Occupancy Permit for Phase I Residential and 1st Occupancy Permit for Phase I Service Commercial 28 Rustic Glen Dr @ (1) Add EB Left Turn Lane Margarita Rd (2) Add EB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (3) Add NB Left Turn Lane (4) Add NB Through Lane (5) Modify WB Right Turn Lane to Shared Through 100% and Right Turn Lane (6) Add SB Through Lane (7) Add SB Right Turn Lane (8) Modify Signal to Accommodate New EB Approach 29 Margarita Rd @ (1 ) Add NB Left Turn Lane South Project (2) Add SB Right Turn Lane Residential (3) Add EB Left Turn Lane 100% (4) Add EB Right Turn Lane (Dual) (5) Install Traffic Signal 30A South Project (1) Add EB Through Lane Residential Access Inbound @ Internal (2) Add NB Left Turn Lane 100% Loop Access Rd (3) Add NB Right Turn Lane (4) Add WB Through Lane (5) Install Traffic Signal 30B South Project (1) Add EB Through Lane Residential Access Rd Outbound @ Internal (2) Add EB Right Turn Lane Loop Access Rd (3) Add WB Through Lane 100% (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane (5) No Intersection Controls Needed 31 East Project (1) Add NB Through Lane Residential Access Rd @ Internal Loop (2) Add NB Right Turn Lane Access Rd (3) Add WB Left Turn Lane 100% (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane (5) Add SB Through Lane (6) Add SB Left Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Signs on WB Approach Prior to issuance of 326~n Occupancy Permit for Phase I residential and more than 8 acres of Phase I Service Commercial 4 Winchester Rd @ (1) Modify Signal to Provide NB Right Turn Ynez Rd Overlap Phase (2) Modify Signal to Provide SB Right Turn 45% Overlap Phase (3) Add EB Through Lane 5 Winchester Rd @ (1) Modify Signal to Provide SB Right Turn 51% Margarita Rd Overlap Phase (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane R:/Resos.2001/Resos 01-70 11 b. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase I, the developer(s) shall implement the Roadway Improvement Needs identified below. Exhibit 10, Development and Roadway Phasing Plan identifies the proposed timing for on-site Roadway Improvement Needs. A program for the improvements listed below with an ..... shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City and the developer (Draft EIR, p.5-81). Complete 4-lane widening of Margarita Road to Arterial highway standards between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Date Street.* The proposed South Residential Access Road and Loop access Road will be constructed to provide adequate access to the first phase of the Harveston project. This will include at a minimum, the following key on-site circulation components: South Residential Access Road, which provides two lanes in each direction with provisions for a median left-turn lane at the intersection with Margarita Road. East Residential Access Road (i.e., extension of Rustic Glen), which provides one lane in each direction with provisions for a median left turn lane at margarita Road and the internal Loop Access Road. Loop Access Road, which provides a single lane in each direction with a center two-way left-turn lane. Additionally, turn lanes may be needed at key intersections (refer to Exhibits 26A-26C). Curbside parking should not generally be provided along the internal Loop Access Road except where required by the City of Temecula. The provision of curb parking should consider sight distance limitations, which may occur along the interior of the Loop Access Road. Bike lanes shall be provided on the three principal on-site roadway described above. c. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase I, the developer(s) shall pay the City's established DIF, less any DIF credits applicable to the project. In lieu of the DIF payment, at the City's discretion, the developer(s) may implement the off-site Improvement Needs identified previously in Mitigation Measures 1 and 2a above (Draft EIR, p.5- 82). 3. Findings. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce project Build-Out traffic impacts to a less than significant level: Project Build-Out Scenario - Year 2005 a. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the Phase II build- out of Residential (i.e., beyond 476 single family units and 346 multi-family units) and Service Commercial (i.e., beyond 20 net acres in Planning Area 12), and Village Center neighborhood commercial (i.e., beyond 8,000 square feet), the developer(s) shall pay their fair-share improvement costs for the intersection improvements outlined in Table 8 of this EIR and listed below. The specific timing of project 2005 build-out improvements (Phase 2 through Phase 4) shall be consistent with the Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program (TMMP), as required in Mitigation Measure 5 below. R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 12 Intersection Improvement Needs 2005 WITH PROJECT BUILD-OUT SCENARIO ID No. Intersection Improvements Project % 1 Winchester Rd @ (1) Add EB Right Turn Lane Jefferson Ave (2) Add NB Right Turn Lane (Dual Right) (3) Add Southbound Left Turn Lane 16% (4) Convert SB Right Turn Lane to Shared Through and Right Turn Lane 2 ,Winchester Rd @ (1) Add EB Right Turn Lane 1-15 Southbound (2) Add SB Dedicated Left Turn Lane (Dual Left) and 23% Ramp Widen Off Ramp to Accommodate the Added Lane 4 Winchester Rd @ (1) Add EB Left Turn Lane (Dual Left) Ynez Rd (2) Add EB Through Lane (3) Modify NB Through Lane to Shared Through and Left Turn Lane (4) Modify Signal to Provide NB Right Turn Overlap 62% Phase (5) Split NB and SB Signal Phases (6) Add WB Through Lane (7) Add SB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane 5 Winchester Rd @ (1) Modify Signal to Provide SB Right Turn Overlap Margarita Rd Phase (2) Modify Signal to Provide NB Right Turn Overlap 42% Phase (3) Add EB Left Turn Lane (Dual) 10 Murrieta Hot Springs (1) Add WB Left Turn Lane (Dual) Rd, @ Jefferson Ave (2) Channelize NB Right Turn Lane to Allow Free 4% Right Turn Movement 12 Murrieta Hot Springs (1) Add WB Right Turn Lane Rd @ Alta Murata Dr :(2) Modify WB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane 21% to Through Lane 13 Murrieta Hot Springs (1) Modify EB Through Lane to Shared Through and Rd @ Margarita Rd Right Turn Lane (2) Modify NB Through Lane to Shared Through and 43% Left Turn Lane 18 Overland Dr @(1) Modify Signal to Provide WB Right Turn Overlap Jefferson Ave Phase (2) Modify Signal to Provide NB Right Turn Overlap 14% Phase (3) Split NB and SB Signal Phases (4) Add EB Right Turn Lane 19 Overland Dr @ (1) Add WB Right Turn Lane Ynez Rd (2) Modify WB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane to Through Lane 27% (3) Modify Signal to Provide WB Right Turn Overlap Phase (4) Modify Signal to Provide SB Right Turn Overlap Phase 26 Overland Dr @ (1) Modify NB Through Lane to Shared Through and Margarita Rd Left Turn Lane 100% R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 13 Intersection Improvement Needs 2005 WITH PROJECT BUILD-OUT SCENARIO ID No. Intersection Improvements Project % (2) Split NB and SB Signal Phases 28 Rustic Glen Dr @ (1) Add EB Left Turn Lane Margarita Rd (2) Add EB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (3) Add NB Left Turn Lane (4) Add NB Through Lane (5) Modify WB Right Turn Lane to Shared Through 100% and Right Turn Lane (6) Add SB Through Lane (7) Add SB Right Turn Lane (8) Modify Signal to Accommodate New EB Approach 30A South Project - (1) Add EB Through Lane Residential Access (2) Add NB Left Turn Lane Rd Inbound @ (3) Add NB Right Turn Lane 100% Internal Loop Access (4) Add WB Through Lane Rd. (5) Install Stop Signs on EB and WB Approaches 30B South Project Resi- (1) Add EB Through Lane dential Access Rd, (2) Add EB Right Turn Lane Outbound @ Internal (3) Add WB Through Lane 100% Loop Access Rd (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane (5) No Intersection Controls Needed 31 East Project (1) Add NB Through Lane Residential Access (2) Add NB Right Turn Lane Rd. @ Internal Loop (3) Add WB Left Turn Lane Access Rd (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane 100% (5) Add SB Through Lane (6) Add SB Left Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Sign on WB Approach 32 Date St @ Ynez Rd (1) Add 3 EB Through Lanes (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane (3) Add EB Right Turn Lane (4) Add 2 NB Through Lanes (5) Add NB Left Turn Lane (6) Add NB Right Turn Lane 42% (7) Add 2 WB Through Lanes (8) Add 2 WB Left Turn Lanes (Dual Left) (9) Add WB Right Turn Lane (10) Add 2 SB Through Lanes (11 ) Add SB Left Turn Lane (12) Add SB Right Turn Lane (13) Install Traffic Signal 33 Date St @ Service (1 ) Add NB Through Lane Commercial Access I (2) Add NB Right Turn Lane (3) Add WB Left Turn Lane (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane 100% (5) Add SB Through Lane R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 14 Intersection Improvement Needs 2005 WITH PROJECT BUILD-OUT SCENARIO ID No. Intersection Improvements Project % (6) Add SB Left Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Signs on NB and SB Approaches 34 Date St @ North (1) Add 2 EB Through Lanes Project Residential 2) Add EB Left Turn Lane Access Rd (3) Add EB Right Turn Lane (4) Add NB Shared Through and Left Turn Lane (5) Add NB Left Turn Lane (6) Add NB Right Turn Lane 76% (7) Add 2 WB Through Lanes (8) Add WB Left Turn Lane (9) Add WB Right Turn Lane (10) Add SB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (11) Add SB Left Turn Lane '(12) Install Traffic Signal 35 North Project (1) Add EB Through Lane Residential Access (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane Rd. Internal Loop (3) Add WB Through Lane Access Rd (4) Add WB Right Turn Lane 100% (5) Add SB Left Turn Lane (6) Add SB Right Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Signs on EB and WB Approaches 36 Ynez Rd @ (1) Add EB Through Lane Service Commercial (2) Add EB Right Turn Lane Access II (3) Add NB Left Turn Lane i(4) Add NB Right Turn Lane 100% (5) Add WB Through Lane (6) Add WB Left Turn Lane (7) Install Stop Signs on EB and WB Approaches 37 Ynez Rd @ {1) Add EB Right Turn Lane Service Commercial (2) Add 2 NB Through Lanes Access III (3) Add NB Left Turn Lane 77% (4) Add 2 SB Through Lanes (5) Add SB Right Turn Lane (6) Install Stop Sign on EB Approach 38 Ynez Rd @ (1) Add EB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane Service Commercial (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane Access IV (3) Add 2 NB Through Lanes 86% (4) Add NB Left Turn Lane (5) Add NB Right Turn Lane (6) Add WB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (7) Add WB Left Turn Lane (8) Add 2 SB Through Lanes 86% (9) Add SB Left Turn Lane (10) Add SB Right Turn Lane '(11 ) Install Traffic Signal R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 15 Intersection Improvement Needs 2005 WiTH PROJECT BUILD-OUT SCENARIO D No. Intersect on I mprovements Project % i(1 ) Add EB Shared Through and Left Turn Lane (2) Add EB Left Turn Lane (3) Add EB Right Turn Lane (4) Add 2 NB Through Lanes (5) Add NB Left Turn Lane (6) Add NB Right Turn Lane (7) Add WB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (8) Add WB Left Turn Lane (9) Add SB Through Lane (10) Add SB Shared Through and Right Turn Lane (11) Add SB Left Turn Lane (12) Add SB Right Turn Lane (13) Install Traffic Si~lnal 37% b. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the build-out of residential and service commercial (Planning Area 12), the developer(s) shall implement the Roadway Improvement Needs identified below. Exhibit 10, Development Phasing Plan identifies the proposed timing for On-site Roadway Improvement Needs. A fair-share program for the improvements listed below with an * may be completed to the satisfaction of the City and the developer (Draft EIR, p.5-85, 86). Construct Date Street between the Service Commercial Access Driveway and Margarita Road as a 6-lane restricted access Urban Arterial. The exact alignment of Date Street (or Cherry Street) needs to be coordinated with study efforts related to the proposed future Date Street (or Cherry Street) interchange. · Realign and extend Ynez Road from current terminus to just south of Date Street as a 4- lane Major. · Construct Ynez Road from the northern project boundary to just south of Date Street as a 4-lane Arterial. Construct the North Residential Access Road between Date Street and the internal Loop Access Road as a 4-lane road with provisions for a median left-turn lane at the intersection with Date Street. Construct the internal Loop Access road as a two-lane roadway with center two-way left turn lane. Curbside parking shall not generally be provided along the Loop Access Road except where required by the City of Temecula. The provision of curb parking shall consider right distance limitations that may occur along the interior side of the Loop Access Road. R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 16 · Bike lanes shall be provided along the Loop Access Road and all three project access roads from Date Street and margarita Road. c. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the build-out of residential and service commercial (Planning Area 12), the developer(s) shall pay the City's established DIF, less any available DIF credits. In lieu of the DIF payment, at the City's discretion, the developer(s) may implement the off-site Roadway Improvement Needs identified previously in Mitigation Measures 3 and 4a above (Draft EIR, p.5-86). d. Prior to the recordation of the first map or the approval of the first development application in Planning Area 12, whichever occurs first, the land area required for the future interchange (approximately 10 acres) shall be dedicated to the City of Temecula. e. Consistent with the City's Circulation Element policies, the Harveston project shall implement a Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program (TMMP) related to the project's traffic impacts. This program would include a series of focused traffic studies that address the potential incremental traffic impacts and roadway system needs associated with subsequent development phases of the project. The EIR traffic study has identified the project- related traffic impacts and roadway system improvement needs at both build-out of the project and for Phase 1 of the project. This traffic study also provides a measure of the overall project's mitigation responsibilities. The intent of the Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program is not to re- define mitigation responsibility, but rather to assist in the refinement of area improvement needs and the timing of these improvements (Draft EIR, p.5-86). The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program proposes that a focused traffic study be prepared prior to occupancy of development included in each of the future development phases (e.g., 2, 3, and 4). The focused traffic study would: 1) document ambient traffic volumes conditions; 2) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and 3) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the focused traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways, which would serve the new development phase and those critical off-site intersections and roadways that will provide access to the new development. Critical intersections / roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion (at the time the focused traffic study is to be performed) and/or those roadways that are part of the General Plan arterial road network. City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements (Draft EIR, p.5-86). f. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer(s) shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Department of Public Works that the project will allow for the facilitation of the City's ultimate Circulation Plan (Draft EIR, p.5-86). Traffic Demand and Systems Management Measures: In addition to the previously roadway and/or intersection improvements identified in Mitigation Measures a through f above, the following transportation system management / transportation demand management (TSM / TDM) measures are recommended to help reduce vehicular trips and traffic congestion: R:/Resos 2001! Resos 01-70 17 g. Prior to the approval of a tentative map or development plan, the developer will forward tract maps to the Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) for review and comment regarding bus turnouts, shelters, etc. Transit-oriented facilities and design features will be incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City and the RTA (Draft EIR, p.5-86). h. Prior to the approval of a tentative map for individual planning areas or development plan, the developer and City staff will review plans, specially for multi- family housing areas, commercial uses, and parks for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities (Draft EIR, P.5-86, 87). i. During the development plan review, major employers (i.e., more than 250 employees) who locate their business within the project shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans in accordance with the Riverside County Council of Governments (RCTCNVRCOG) guidelines (Draft EIR, p.5-87). 4. Supporting Explanation. In order to lessen the need for vehicle trips and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the Project, the Specific Plan provides a system of bikeway and pedestrian pathways. These amenities will be provided along Margarita Road, Ynez Road, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Date Street and Loop Access Road (Draft EIR, p. 5-76). With the implementation of the project as proposed, including the Specific Plan Circulation Element and Mitigation Measures (including recommended roadway and intersection improvements), no significant traffic impacts will result from the proposed project under the Phase I - 2002 and Full Build-Out 2005 Scenarios (Draft EIR, p. 5-87). The main objective of the Circulation Plan is to provide direct and convenient access to individual residential enclaves, employment and service land uses through a safe and efficient network including arterial, secondary, collector, and local roadways, and a pedestrian trail/sidewalk system. The Loop Road, which will be the primary circulation route through Harveston, is envisioned as a landscaped parkway, with a right-of-way width of 86-feet. This accommodates a 44-foot road width, with wide parkway strips on either side (Draft EIR, p. 5-74 - 75). Roadways adjacent to the site will be improved to provide efficient access. All other residential roads, cul-de-sacs, and alley designs will be developed in conjunction with tentative tract maps for individual planning areas (Draft EIR, p. 5-74 - 75). C. Noise 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will create short-term noise increases near the project site. With little development on the project site, initial heavy construction will not have significant noise impact potential. Such impacts may however, become important if construction occurs near already completed residential uses during later phases of project development (Draft EIR, p. 5-108). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 18 Upon completion, project-related traffic will cause an incremental increase in areawide noise levels throughout the Temecula area. Traffic noise impacts are generally analyzed both to insure that the project does not adversely impact the acoustic environment of the surrounding community, as well as to insure that the project site is not exposed to an unacceptable level of noise resulting from the ambient noise environment acting upon the project (Draft EIR, p. 5- · 108). 2. Findings. The following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to reduce potential noise impacts to a less than significant level Short-term construction impact The following measures are required to reduce short-term construction noise impacts: a. As specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours (Draft EIR, p. 5-119): 6:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., Monday through Friday. Before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:30 p.m., Saturday. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. b. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps, generators or motors shall be allowed to operate within one quarter (1/4) mile of any occupied residence from 6:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. unless such equipment is surrounded by a noise protection earthen berm or solid barrier (Draft EIR, p. 5- 119). c. All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings (Draft EIR, p. 5-119). Long-term noise impact The following measures are required to achieve compliance with City standards for land use compatibility with respect to interior and exterior noise: d. A noise mitigation analysis shall be pedormed, at the final map stage (for individual, planning areas), for all future project noise-sensitive uses potentially exposed to noise levels in excess of 60dB CNEL to verify that planned noise protection will meet City of Temecula standards (Draft EIR, p. 5-119, 120). Exterior recreational areas shall be protected to achieve noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL. Interior living areas shall be protected to achieve noise levels of less than 4 dB CNEL. Substantial perimeter walls separating rear yards from the roadway right-of way along Date Street are anticipated to be necessary. Precise wall geometrics shall be determined once exact setbacks and building pad grades are established. R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 19 Moderately upgrading window treatments shall be necessary along Date Street in upstairs bedrooms closest to the roadway. Minor acoustical upgrades shall be needed along Margarita or Ynez beyond simply closing windows to shut out roadway noise. The building code requires that supplemental fresh air ventilation be provided in rooms where window closure for traffic noise protection is necessary. A detailed noise attenuation evaluation shall be conducted in a supplemental acoustical study to be submitted when the tract map is filled with the appropriate agency. 3. Supporting Explanation. The proposed Harveston project shall comply with the applicable codes and standards. Compliance with the City's standards shall assure regulations of nuisance noise during all phases of construction and operation of the project (Draft EIR, p. 5-119). Implementation of mitigation measure 4 and the rear yard perimeter protection for usable outdoor space (yard, patio, spa, etc.) for proposed homes along Date Street, Ynez Road, and Margarita Road will reduce the impacts to less than significant. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures 1-3 listed above, for temporary noise impacts emanating from construction activities, will reduce the short-term impacts to a level of less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5- 120). D. Geology and Soils 1. Potential Significant Impact. The proposed project may introduce potential impacts related to seismic activity and other soils and geologic hazards (i.e., liquefaction, lateral spreading, earth-quake induced flooding, expansive soils, permanent cut slopes, surficial slopes instability, shrinkage and subsidence, and soil corrosivity) (Draft EIR, p. 2-18). Generally, geotechnical issues are site-specific and will be limited to within the development boundaries of the specific Plan site; therefore, no cumulative geotechnical impacts are anticipated (Draft EIR, p. 5-131). 2. Findings. The following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to reduce potential project geology and soils impacts to a less than significant level: a. During staff review of the tentative map for individual planning areas, an updated geotechnical/geologic report shall be prepared to include any necessary revisions to earthwork, foundation, design, and construction recommendations (Draft EIR, p. 5- 132). b. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the recommendations contained in section 6.0 of the geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of the Draft EIR shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Earthwork activities include grading removals, subdrains, permanent slopes, temporary slope excavations, utility trench backfill, and site drainage. Additional recommendations are presented to mitigate the potential impacts related to liquefaction, expansive soil potential, and shrinkage and subsidence (Draft EIR, p. 5-132). c. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the recommendations contained in Section 7.0 of the geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of this document, shall be incorporated into the structural design of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Structural design activities include: foundation design; retaining walls; slabs- on-grade; and appurtenant facilities (Draft EI R, p. 5-132). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 20 d. Prior to issuance of a building permit, it shall be proven to the Department of Building and Safety that al structures shall be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the California Building Codes or Structural Engineering Association of California to promote safety in the event of an earthquake (Draft EIR, p. 5-132, 133). 3. Supporting Explanation. Application of the following standard conditions and uniform codes will reduce a number of potential impacts to a level of less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-131,132): · UBC, City Building Codes, and applicable seismic standards will reduce ground-shaking and related seismic effects to a level of less than significant. UBC, City Building Codes, and geotechnical report requirements will reduce impacts related to liquefication and seismically related soil conditions to a level of less than significant. · City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to disposal of excavated material, to a level of less than significant. · UBC or City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to unstable cut and fill slopes to a level of less than significant. · Cai OSHA Construction Safety Orders and City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to trench wall stability to a level of less than significant. · City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to erosion of graded areas to a level of less than significant. · City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to alteration of runoff, to a level of less than significant. · City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to unprotected drainage ways to a level of less than significant. · City grading and Building Codes will reduce impacts related to increased impervious surfaces to a level of less than significant. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above and compliance with standard federal, state, and local building codes, potential project impacts associated with seismic activity and other soil / geologic hazards will be reduced to levels less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5- 133). E. Hydrology and Drainage 1. Potential Significant Impact. The proposed project has the potential to result in a long-term impact on water quality due to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. Additionally, the proposed project has the potential to increase impervious surfaces, leading to increased runoff. R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 21 The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in a cumulative impact related to hydrology and drainage issues (i.e., water quality impacts, erosion, down stream siltation). The project's incremental contribution to this impact can be mitigated to a level less than significance. Water runoff will cumulatively increase due to the introduction of impervious surfaces. The proposed mitigation measure will reduce the project's incremental cumulative impact to a level less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-146). 2. Findings. The following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to reduce potential hydrology and drainage impact to a less than significant level: a. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for any areas larger than 5 acres in size, the developer shall submit a "Notice of Intent" (NOI), along with the required fee to the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or the State Water Resources Control Board to be covered under the State national Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction permit and provide the City with a copy of the written reply containing the developer's identification number (Draft EIR, p. 5-146). b. Prior to the issuance of the grading permits, the developer shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan showing conformance to all NPDES requirements (enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region) for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical using best management practices, erosion control techniques and systems, design and engineering method and such other provision which are appropriate (Draft EIR, p. 5-147). Storm Water Quality Alternatives c. Catch Basin Filters: Storm water runoff may contain quantities of oil and grease from the use of vehicles. Catch basin filters could be installed on the on-site catch basins to absorb these contaminants before they get into the storm drain system. Catch basin filter is a filter which utilizes a natural absorbent material called Amorphos Alumina silicate (Fossil Rock) to filter out oil and grease and also maintain sufficient flow rate. Exact design of the filters may vary according to the characteristics of the proposed catch basins. A maintenance program would need to be developed, if possible to make this practice practical. Such a program typically includes periodic inspections, debris removal, local area cleanup, and replacement of filter absorbent material. An entity would need to be identified to carry out the maintenance program (Draft EIR, p. 5-147). d. Catch Basin Cleaninq: Cleaning of catch basin would be performed regularly to remove debris and reduce pollutant concentrations before first flush during storm seasons. Cleaning would also minimize clogging of the catch basin filter and underground drainage system. This catch basin cleaning practice should be at minimum provided once a year before the wet season to eliminate debris accumulated during the summer (Draft EIR, p. 5-147) e. Storm Drain System Si.qnaqe: The Standard "No Dumping" signs would be posted at all the catch basin on-site (Draft EIR, p. 5-147) f. Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Education: Information regarding the City's or County's mobile collection program, or a stationary collection site if the City or County has one in the area, or businesses in the area certified to take in such waste could be given to new home buyers by the homebuilder at the time of new home R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 22 purchase. If a homeowners association (HOA) is formed for this development, similar information could be disseminated on a regular basis (newsletters, billings, etc.) through this organization. The HOA and homebuilder could obtain information on programs from and coordinate with the City's Community Services Department (Draft EIR, p. 5-147). 3. Supporting Explanation. Ail construction activity will comply with NPDES requirements, as implemented and enforced by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. Also, all commemial development will comply with NPDES requirements for stormwater runoff control, as implemented and enforced by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City will ensure that any required permanent facilities are in place. Compliance with these standard requirements will be mandated for the project (Draft EIR, p. 5-146). With implementation of proposed Mitigation Measure 1, the potential impacts to drainage will be reduced to a level less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-147). With implementation of proposed Mitigation Measure 1, the potential impacts associated with flooding will be reduced to a level less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-147). With implementation of proposed Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, the potential impacts to water quality will be reduced to level less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-147). Implementation of proposed Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 will reduce the project's contribution to potential cumulative drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts to a level less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-147). Incorporation into the Specific Plan of these mitigation measures will result in changes or alterations to the Specific Plan that will reduce hydrology and drainage impacts to a less than significant level. F. Biological Resources 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Impacts to Sensitive Species Although the proposed project occurs within the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Area, this species is highly unlikely to occur onsite, and implementation of the SKR mitigation fees will reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant. Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas The proposed project will impact approximately 2.86 acres of '~vaters of the United States." No wetlands or riparian plant communities will be effected by the proposed project. The project has obtained a 404 permit from the Army COE and a 1603 Agreement from the CDFG. Mitigation for these impacts includes avoidance and habitat creating. With the implementation of the 404 and 1603 permit conditions, no significant impacts to Jurisdictional Waters are anticipate.d (Draft EIR, p. 5-156). 2. Findings. The following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to reduce potential biological resources impact to a less than significant level R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 23 a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall provide proof to the Department of Public Works and planning that the conditions of 404 and 1603 permits pertaining to the arroyo Park restoration have been bonded for and shall be implemented consistent with the timing requirements of the permits (Draft EIR, p. 5-157). b. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall pay applicable SKR mitigation fees in accordance with Chapter 8.24 (Habitat Construction) of the Temecula Municipal Code (Draft EIR, p. 5-157). 3. Supporting Explanation. Although no impact has been identified to SKR, implementation of the above standard condition will ensure that any potential impact to SKR regionally is mitigated to less than significant level. The proposed project will impact approximately 2.86 acres of "waters of the United States." No wetlands or riparian plant communities will be effected by the proposed project. Lennar Homes has obtained a 404 permit from the army COE and a 1603 Agreement from the CDFG. Mitigation for these impacts includes avoidance and habitat creation. Mitigation Measure 1 requires implementation of conditions of 404 and 1603 regarding restoration of the Arroyo Park, which will reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. The project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level (Draft EIR, p. 5-157). G. Public Services and Utilities 1. Potential Significant Impact. The proposed project will create increased demand for public services and utilities on a local and regional basis (Draft EIR, p. 2-22). Fire According to the Temecula Fire Services and Riverside County Fire Department, future development of the project site will not create a need for expansion of facilities or addition of staff nor will it adversely impact the level of Service presently provided. Because the proposed project is located within City limits, the Fire Services Fees are included in the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 1-4, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels (Draft EIR, p. 5-163). Police Development within the project area will adversely impact the level of police services presently provided. Calls for service will increase, requiring additional staff and office time to manage the project area. According to the City of Temecula Police Department, development of the project site will create the need for an additional storefront field office facility to support walk-in type "Calls for Service" (Draft EIR, p. 5-163). The proposed project would also create the need for additional staff. Presently, there is no revenue budgeted for such an expansion (Draft EIR, p. 5-163). Schools The development of 1,921 new residential units would generate 787 additional elementary school students, 337 middle school students, and 244 high school students. A new elementary school site would be needed since the school currently serving the area in no longer able to expand on the existing site. Additionally, expansions to Day Middle School and Chaparral High R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 24 School would be required to house new students. Additional staff would also be required to serve the students (Draft EIR, p. 5-164). Parks and Recreation The proposed project would create additional demands on existing recreation facilities and service related programs. Implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan will create an additional demand for parks and recreation facilities. Additional staffing would be anticipated to fulfill these needs in concurrence with project development (Draft EIR, p. 5-164). Library The development of 1,921 new houses will generate additional patrons and will ultimately create a need for additional library staff, space, and additional resources. Additionally, the proposed project will create an increase in traffic though the library. The project will pay library fees, which are included in the City's DIR Fees to offset the project's effect on library facilities. The annual special tax paid by property owners helps offset library operations and maintenance. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 12, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels (Draft EIR, p. 5-165). Public Transportation The proposed project is anticipated to result in an increased demand for extended service to cover the project site. The project will create a need to expand coverage of the current Temecula/Murrieta routes. Additional buses are also needed to meet demands for increased service. Bus turnouts and shelters to serve future residents shall be provided as required and established by the City Engineer, director of Planning, and the RTA (Draft EIR, p. 5-165). Water Implementation of the proposed project would result in development of land uses that may impact existing water services and facilities. Although the Rancho California Water District foresees no problems serving the proposed project, construction of Winchester Reservoir No. 2 by RCWD will occur on an as-needed basis as water demands increase in the 1380 Pressure zone (Draft EIR, p. 5-165). Sewer Implementation of the proposed project may result in additional demand on the existing sewer system from increased sewage flows, but will not adversely impact the level of service presently provided (Draft EIR, p. 5-166). Harveston Specific Plan area is located within the sewer service boundaries of Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). According to the Eastern Municipal Water District, the existing facilities can accommodate this increased demand. Expansion of facilities and additional staff will be required over time (Draft EIR, p. 5-166). Storm Drainaqe / Flood Control The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in a cumulative impact related to hydrology and drainage issues. The project's incremental contribution to this impact can be mitigated to a level less than significance. Water runoff will cumulatively increase due to the introduction of impervious R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 25 surfaces. The proposed mitigation measure will reduce the project's incremental cumulative impact to a level less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-146). Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company (SCG) indicated that gas service could be provided in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 13, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels (Draft EIR, p. 5-171). Electricity Southern California Edison Company (SCE) does not anticipate any significant impacts in providing the project site with electrical power. SCE stands ready to install distribution facilities for the project site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 14, potential significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels (Draft EIR, p. 5-171 ). Solid Waste Project implementation will increase the amount of solid waste generated in the region, which in turn will increase the demand upon services of waste haulers in the project area. In addition, the construction phase of the development will also produce on-site solid waste (Draft EIR, p. 5- 171). There appears to be adequate landfill space for the present and immediate future, and the City participates in solid waste management activities through its SRRE. Based on this information, no significant solid waste utility impacts are expected with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 15 through 19. The project will be consistent with the goals of the General Plan related to utility systems after implementation of the proposed Mitigation Measures 15 through 19 (Draft EIR, p. 5-172). 2. Findings. The following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to reduce potential public services and utilities impact to a less than significant level: Fire a. Prior to the issuance of building permits, developer of individual projects shall pay the Development Impact Fee - Fire Protection Facilities Component per dwelling unit and per square foot of commercial spaces as adopted by the City of Temecula (Draft EIR, p. 5-176). b. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer will demonstrate that all structures on-site shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as described in section 3202 of the California building Code. All roof materials shall be a class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation (Draft EIR, p, 5-177). c. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will demonstrate that all water mains and fire hydrants provide required for flows and shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Temecula Municipal Code Ordinance No. 99-14 and No. 99-23, subject to approval by Temecula Fire Service during design review (Draft EIR, p, 5-177). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 26 d. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will demonstrate compliance with fire flow, street width, and design requirements as established by the City and County departments, as appropriate (Draft EIR, p, 5-177). Police e. Prior to the approval of development plans, the developer shall incorporate the following crime prevention measures within the detailed design plans for each tract map submitted to the City for review. The City of Temecula, Crime Prevention Officer shall review detailed plans for proposed residential and commercial uses in order to insure incorporation on these measures (Draft EiR, p, 5-177): · On-site street, walkways and bikeways shall be illuminated in order to enhance night time visibility; · Doors and windows shall be visible from the street and between buildings in order to discourage burglaries and potential suspect hiding places; · Fencing heights and materials utilized are intended to discourage climbing; · The numbering identification system utilized on-site shall be visible and readily apparent in order to aid emergency response agencies in quickly finding specific locations; and Walls along backbone streets will utilize graffiti resistant materials in their construction. In addition, shrubs, vines and espaliers shall be planted along the outside of these walls in order to provide coverage thereby further discouraging graffiti and climbing. .Schools f. The project developer has entered into a Mitigation Agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to insure the provision of adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy. The developer has been required to provide a school site and/or pay school fees pursuant to the agreement. (Draft EiR, p, 5-177). g. The conveyance of the elementary school site has occurred in accordance with District policies in effect at the time of development. The agreement regarding conveyance shall be provided to the City prior to the recordation of the tentative tract map for Phase 1 (Draft EIR, p. 5-177, 178). Parks and Recreation h. Prior to tentative map approval for individual planning areas, all recreational facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) and the Planning Department, to ensure that said facilities are in accordance with the City of Temecula standards (Draft EIR, p, 5-178). i. Prior to the approval of the final map for individual planning areas, the developer will dedicate land or contribute to the City's in lieu park fees in accordance with the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance (Draft EiR, p, 5-178). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 27 j. Prior to final map approval for individual planning areas, the developer will certify that ownership and maintenance of all open space/conservation areas will be the responsibility of a private entity and/or the Temecula Community Services Department, as determined by the Temecula Community Services Department (Draft EIR, p, 5-178). k. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2, specified in the Specific Plan, the 18.5-acre Community Park shall be completed per TCSD requirements and conveyed by grant deed to the City of Temecula (Draft EIR, p. 5-178). Library Prior to the issuance of building permits, developer of individual projects shall pay the Development Impact Fee - Libraries Component (Draft EIR, p, 5-178). Public Transportation Impacts are addressed in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Mitigation Measures 6 through 8 in Transportation / Circulation Section of this Mitigation Monitoring Program (Draft EIR, p, 5-178). Water Because implementation of the project as proposed, including the Specific Plan master utility plans, standard conditions, and uniform codes, is not expected to produce any significant impacts on water, no mitigation measures are necessary (Draft EIR, p, 5-178). Sewer Because implementation of the project as proposed, including the Specific Plan master utility plans, standard conditions, and uniform codes, is not expected to produce any significant impacts on sewer, no mitigation measures are necessary (Draft EIR, p. 5-179). Storm Draina,qe / Flood Control Please refer to Hydrology and Drainage Section of this Mitigation Monitoring Program for a discussion of impacts related to storm drainage (Draft EIR, p. 5-179). Natural Gas m. Prior to issuance of building permits, The Gas Company or designated natural gas provider shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures (Draft EIR, p. 5-179). Electricity n. Prior to issuance of building permits, Southern California Edison (SCE) shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures (Draft EIR, p. 5-179). Solid Waste R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 28 o. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the developers will inform all refuse generators within the project site, in writing, about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e., buy-back centers, curbside recycling, etc.). The use of such facilities will be encouraged by the developer, through information (e.g., materials accepted, location, etc.) provided in sales literature (Draft EIR, p. 5-179). p. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials (recycling areas) in the commercial and multi-family residential areas. This will help the City comply with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (AB 1327). The developer will also demonstrate compliance with established standards for design, siting, and operation of recycling areas and programs (Draft EIR, p. 5-179). q. All residential units within the Harveston Specific Plan shall participate in the City's three (3) bin recycling system for the collection of solid waste, recyclable, and green waste materials (Draft EIR, p. 5-1.79). r. All multi-family, commercial, and industrial waters shall be processed at the material Recovery Facility in the City of Perris or similar recovery facility (Draft EIR, p. 5-179). s. Proof shall be provided to TCSD that, construction debris, including but not limited to lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper, metal, etc. shall be recycled (Draft EIR, p. 5-179). 3. Supporting Explanation. All utility and public services improvements proposed as part of the Harveston Specific Plan/EIR will meet applicable City of Temecula, County of Riverside, and uniform codes (i.e., plumbing, fire, building) including potable water and sewer pipelines, electrical cables and writing, and natural gas lines. The proposed improvements will go through City's development review process and construction inspection program to ensure proper compliance with these standards and codes (Draft EIR, p. 5-176). The proposed project will create increased demand for public services and utilities on a local and regional basis. After mitigation, potential project impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will create an increased demand on fire, police, schools, parks and recreation, library, public transportation, water, sewer, storm drainage/flood control, natural gas, electricity, and solid waste services and facilities. Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce each incremental cumulative impact on the associated public services and/or utilities to a level less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-180). P. Cultural Resources 1. Potential Significant Impact. Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic or archaeological resource; however, it may directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. According to the General Plan, the project site does not contain areas of sensitivity for archaeological resources, but it does contain areas considered to be high in sensitivity for paleontological resources. RMW Paleo Associates prepared a cultural resource study for the Specific Plan area, which consisted of a literature review and records search and a walkover survey (Initial Study, p. 7). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 29 2. Findings. a. Inspection personnel will monitor onsite grading, including excavated soil stockpiles, especially in areas where Pauba or unnamed Sandstone formations are disturbed, for evidence of paleontological, amhaeological, or historical artifacts (e.g., shells, fossils, bones, pottery, charcoal deposits, arrowheads, etc.). If any artifacts are discovered during grading, work will be halted and qualified personnel will be retained to examine, evaluate, and determine the most appropriate disposition of the resource(s) (Draft EIR, p. 8-21). 3. Supporting Explanation. According to the study, no archaeological sites were found on the project site. Although paleontological sites were not found on the site, according to the study, project implementation could expose fossils through grading and other development activities. Implementation of the above mitigation measure ensures that exposure of cultural resources during grading/construction does not occur (Initial Study, p. 7). Section 4. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein: A. Air Quality (Short-term Construction Related and Long-term) 1. Potential Significant Impact. The proposed project will have a short-term impact on air quality from construction activities. The grading of the project site, the construction of the buildings, and construction worker trips will create temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants throughout the project construction period. Pollutant emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing weather (Draft EIR, p. 5-97). Additionally, the proposed project will result in short-term air quality impact by daily exceeding the threshold for NOx. It will also add emissions to a non-attainment air basin causing significant impact, which cannot be mitigated (Draft EIR, p. 2-12). The proposed project will also result in long-term air quality impact by daily exceeding the threshold for CO, NOx, PM10 and ROG. The proposed project will add emissions to a non- attainment air basin, causing significant impact (Draft EIR, p. 2-15). The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in significantly cumulative long-term impacts to air quality (Draft EIR, 2-16). 2. Findings. Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce long-term air quality impacts to the extent feasible: a. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following (Draft EIR, p. 5-101 ): i. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune, ii. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1) Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 30 dust pick up be the wind. 2) 3) Spread soil binders; and Implement street sweeping as necessary. iii. During construction: 1) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 2) Wet down areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 3) Use Iow sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment. iv. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. b. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following (Draft EI R, p. 5-101, 102): Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. ii. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. iii. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). iv, possible on construction sites. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. vi. Wash off truck leaving sites. vii. Require all truck hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. viii. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from storm water especially on super pads. ix. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. x. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. xi. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. R'/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 31 c. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving (Draft EIR, p. 5-102). d. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles be equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions (Draft EIR, p. 5-102). e. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate (Draft EIR, p. 5-102): i. Provision of rideshare incentives. ii. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. iii. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. iv. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. v. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. f. Prior to the building/construction operations, individual contractors will commit in writing to the following (Draft EIR, p. 5-102): i. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 - 8:30 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM); ii. sensitivity; and iii. periods. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel g. Prior to the approval of tentative maps and/or development plans, developers will submit tract maps and/or street improvement plans to the RTA for review and comment regarding bus turnouts, shelter, etc. Transit-oriented facilities and design features will be incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City. City staff will focus of the review plans for commercial uses to provide transit related features (Draft EIR, p. 5-102). h. Prior to the approval of a development plan, City staff will review plans, especially for commercial and park uses, for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). i. Prior to the approval of a development plan, City staff will review plans for all service commercial uses to encourage the provision of park and ride facilities (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 32 j. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the developer shall provide proof to the City's Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its fair-share towards regional traffic improvement systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by project development (Draft EIR, p. 5- 103). k. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide proof that energy saving features will be installed in project homes as required by the California Building Code. Features may include: solar or Iow-emission water heaters, solar roof tiles, energy efficient appliances, dual parted windows, Iow-pressure sodium parking lights, etc. Additionally, residential products constructed by the home building division of Lennar shall incorporate "Comfort Wise" energy-efficiency features (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). 3. Supporting Explanation. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for construction activities. Further, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 1 though 6 are proposed to reduce this impact (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future project, will result in a short-term air quality impact due to construction activities. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be reduced by Mitigation Measures 1 through 6. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, remain significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). The City of Temecula requires all projects within its jurisdiction to conform with SCAQMD Rule 403.2 and other applicable SCAQMD regulations regarding grading and construction. The SCAQMD Rule 403.2 includes standard conditions for construction activities to minimize the production of air pollutants including fugitive dust (Draft EIR, p. 5-101). The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for CO, NOx, PM10 and ROC. The daily exceedance of the thresholds for CO, NOx, PM10 and ROC is a long-term air quality impact. Further, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure g and k are proposed to reduce this impact. This impact even with proposed mitigation cannot be reduced to a level less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in significant cumulative long-term impacts to air quality. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures g through k will reduce the proposed project's incremental contribution to this impact by reducing the proposed project's mobile and stationary soume emissions. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, remains significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted for the air quality impacts, which remain significant after mitigation (Draft fIR, p. 5-103). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 B. Cumulative Impact on Air Quality I Potential Significant Impact. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in a short-term air quality impact due to construction activities. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be an impact (Draft EIR, p. 5-100). The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in significant cumulative long-term impacts to air quality. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be an impact. The project's incremental impact cannot be reduced to a level less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-100). 2. Findings. The same mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1 above will help to slightly lessen the cumulative air quality impacts. Yet, no feasible mitigation measures exist which would reduce the cumulative impact of average daily pollutant emissions to a less than significant level. 3. The City of Temecula requires all projects within its jurisdiction to conform with SCAQMD Rule 403.2 and other applicable SCAQMD regulations regarding grading and construction. The SCAQMD Rule 403.2 includes standard conditions for construction activities to minimize the production of air pollutants including fugitive dust (Draft EI R, p. 5-101). The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for CO, NOx, PM10 and ROC. The daily exceedance of the thresholds for CO, NOx, PM10 and ROC is a long-term air quality impact. (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in significant cumulative long-term impacts to air quality. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures g through k will reduce the proposed project's incremental contribution to this impact by reducing the proposed project's mobile and stationary source emissions. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, remains significant (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted for the air quality impacts, which remain significant after mitigation (Draft EIR, p. 5-103). Section 5. Alternatives. The City Council hereby declares that it has considered the alternatives identified in the Draft EIR as described below. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or to the location of the Project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project which could feasibly attain most of the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives, in all cases, the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of roason." The lead agency is not required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in an EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the proposed Project and (1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a Project can be reduced to an acceptable R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 34 level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible The City's General Plan identifies goals and policies that are relevant to the Specific Plan and the City as a whole, which are to provide for the orderly development of Temecula, in general, and also specifically for the Harveston site. A. Land Use Alternative 1. Description. The "Business Park Land Use" alternative proposes 30-acre of Business Park within southern portion of Planning Area 12 which under the proposed project is designated as Service Commercial. Please note that the proposed alternative described herein would be designated as "Business Park" in the City of Temecula General Plan and would be similar to the "Light Industrial" under the City of Temecula Development Code. The advantage of this alternative is to create a better transition between the Service Commercial within the Specific Plan area (remaining 82.4 acres of the proposed Service Commercial) and the existing adjacent Business Park/Light Industrial uses to the south. Additionally, while creating a more compatible use with the existing surrounding uses to the south, the addition of this use diversity within the overall Specific Plan area. It introduces new uses within the Business Park designation which otherwise would not be permitted within the Harveston Specific Plan. Depending on the final location of the interchange, the Business Park alternative may constrain the ability to implement commercial uses south of Date Street. If the alternative Cherry Street alignment is selected, the exact business park area would be somewhat modified but would remain roughly the same size (Final EIR, p. 6-2). This alternative is to be consistent with the Rate and Method of Apportionment adopted as part of Community Facility District 98- 01. 2. Finding. The Planning Commission finds that the environmental impacts for this alternative would remain the same as the original proposed project, except for transportation/circulation impacts, which are reduced from the proposed project. The reduction of traffic under this alternative resulting in reduced transportation/circulation impacts would also be carried through to air quality and noise impacts (Draft EIR, p. 6-2). 3. Supporting Explanation. This alternative is feasible. While it meets the City's objectives, it does not meet the developer's objective to maximize future potential property values. This alternative does not require any additional land that would not be under the City or developer's ownership. This alternative reduces overall traffic by reducing total ADT by (6%). This reduction would also create less long-term air quality and noise impacts compared to the original proposed land use plan. It introduces better compatibility with the existing uses to the south and creates more diversity within the Specific Plan area. This alternative should remain under consideration (Draft EIR, p. 6-4). B. City-Wide Build-Out Circulation Alternatives 1. Description. As indicated in the April 1999, Notice of Preparation for this project and within Section 5.3 of this EIR, the City of Temecula's Circulation Element Update is currently in progress (Draft EIR, p. 6-5). The proposed Land Use Plan (Exhibit 4 in Section 3.0) identifies proposed land uses, as well as a proposed Circulation Plan that would accommodate the City's Citywide transportation needs. The Date Street Connection (as shown on Exhibit 4) is identified on the City's Existing Circulation Element. As identified within Section 5.3 of this EIR, under the City's Ultimate Build-Out Traffic Scenario, significant cumulative build-out impacts (i.e., LOS D or greater) occur along several roadways in the project vicinity (refer to Exhibit 44). The following circulation alternatives were analyzed in the EIR (Draft EIR, p. 6-5). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 35 Alternative 1 - Cherry Street Interchange Alternative The current Draft Proposed Circulation Plan that refers to a Cherry Street Connection (Over- crossing / Intemhange Alternative) is consistent with the recently adopted Circulation Plan roadway configuration within the City of Murrieta. The objectives of this alternative Circulation Plan were: 1) to conform to the General Plans for the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, 2) to maintain the Cherry Street Connection and any associated improvements wholly within the Temecula City Limits, and 3) maintain an alignment, which is consistent with City Traffic Engineer Design Standards. Alternative 2 - Date Street Over-Crossing Alternative This roadway configuration alternative proposes a Date Street over-crossing, which has been incorporated into the build-out model network component. A build-out traffic analysis was performed for this alternative (Draft EIR, p. 6-8). Alternative 3 - Cherry Street Over-Crossing Alternative This roadway configuration alternative proposes a Cherry Street over-crossing, which has been incorporated into the build-out model network component. A build-out traffic analysis was performed for this alternative (Draft EIR, p. 6-8). 2. Finding. The City Council finds that because the three (3) above described circulation alternatives would essentially include the same quantity of development (i.e., 1,921 dwelling units and + 112 acres of Service Commercial). The majority of environmental issue impacts associated with the circulation alternatives would essentially be similar to the impacts identified in the EIR (i.e., biology, geology, etc). Aside from the differences in the long-term City-wide traffic impacts, the Cherry Street Connection Circulation Alternatives would result in a slightly larger Arroyo Park (_+ 1.5 acres) and the Cherry Street Interchange alternative would require the acquisition of additional property not currently under the developer's or City's ownership. Both the Date and Cherry Over Crossing Only Alternatives would result in greater long-term Citywide circulation impacts (Draft EIR, p. 6-8). Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the Cherry Street Intemhange Alternative. 3. Supporting Explanation. The above discussed circulation alternatives are feasible. The Cherry Street Connection Alternatives would require land not currently under the City or developer ownership. The Draft Circulation Plan Alternative with a Cherry Street Interchange does reduce long-term Citywide circulation impacts over the existing adopted City's Circulation Element. It should be noted that the Draft Circulation Plan Alternative with a Date Street Intemhange would result in similar Citywide circulation improvements beyond the City's existing Circulation Element. Both the Date and Cherry Over-crossing Alternatives would result in greater long-term Citywide cimulation impacts (Draft EIR, p. 6-12). C. Community Park Design Alternatives 1. Description. The five (5) Community Park design alternatives were developed in response to suggestions / input from Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) and the City of Temecula Planning Department, following their review of the original Conceptual Community Park Plan (Draft EIR, p. 6-14). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 36 Aside from the variation in the layout of park facilities (which do not change the impacts analysis results), the five (5) proposed park design alternatives incorporate the following modifications: 1 ) the realignment of Equity Drive, and 2) the utilization of the 1.25-acre out parcel in Alternatives 1 through 4. The rational for these modifications are: 1) the Equity Drive realignment provides for greater buffer / separation of the proposed park from the existing Winchester Highlands Business Park uses (i.e., Channel Commercial), and 2) the utilization of the 1.25-acre excluded parcel allows for a more balanced park pamel configuration, which result in a greater efficiency of park facility layout. The discussion below summarizes each design alternative. It should be noted that the key difference between these alternatives for CEQA analysis purposes is the Equity drive interface and how the excluded-parcel issue is addressed (Draft EIR, p. 6-14). Alternative 1 - Equity Drive Realiqnment and Use of Excluded Parcel This alternative includes all the TCSD required facilities. Although the ballfields meet the TCSD dimension criteria, there is some overlap in centerfield of the baseball / softball fields. This alternative requires approximately 12 light poles for the athletic fields. (Draft EI R, p. 6-14). Alternative 2 - Equity Drive Realiqnment and Use of Excluded Parcel This alternative is a slight variation of the alternative 1 layout with the parking lot off Equity Drive shifting below the picnic area. The snack facility was also moved in this alternative. This alternative includes all the required TCSD facilities; however, in an effort to reduce the balifield overlap, the 2 softball fields were reduced to 260' from 300'. The 2 baseball fields still remain at 300'. Additionally, 4 basketball courts (not a TCSD required facility) were provided in this plan. This alternative requires approximately 11 light poles for the athletic fields (Draft EIR, p. 6-15). Alternative 3 - Equity Drive Reali.qnment and Use of Excluded Parcel This alternative is a further variation of the alternative 2 layout with the parking lot, picnic area, and snack facility remaining in the same location as alternative 2. However, the ballfields are laid out in a different manner with the diamonds side by side and the bleachers back to back. This configuration is the most efficient from a facility standpoint, and allows a direct path from the bleachers to the snack facility. This alternative includes all the TCSD required facilities; however, in an effort to reduce the ballfield overlap, the 2 softball fields were reduced to 260' from 300'. The 2 baseball fields still remain at 300'. Additionally, 4 basketball courts (not a TCSD required facility) were provided in this plan. This alternative requires approximately 11 light poles for the athletic fields (Draft EIR, p. 6-15). Alternative 4 - Equity Drive Reali.qnment, But No Use of the Excluded Parcel This alternative is a partial variation of the alternative I layout with the parking lots, picnic area, and tot lot/play area occurring in a similar location to that of alternative 1. The layout of the fields is however, modified from alternative I to be more efficient. The baseball / softball diamonds and bleachers are all back to back with the snack facility centrally located between the four fields. This alternative includes all the TCSD required facilities; however, in an effort to reduce the ballfield overlap, the 2 softball fields were reduced to 260' from 300'. This alternative requires approximately 12 light poles for the athletic fields (Draft EIR, p. 6-15). R:/Rescs 2001/Resos 01-70 37 Alternative 5 - Equity Dr ve RealiRnment, But No Use of the Excluded Parcel This alternative is a slight variation of alternative 3 with the exception that the parking lot at Equity Drive and a smaller picnic area is shifted to allow for the excluded parcel to remain. The basketball courts provided in alternative 3 are eliminated in this alternative. The ballfields area laid out in the same manner as alternative 3 with the diamonds side by side and the bleachers back to back. This configuration is the most efficient from a facility standpoint, and allows a direct path from the bleachers to the snack facility. This alternative requires approximately 11 poles from the athletic fields (Draft EIR, p. 6-15). 2. Finding. The Planning Commission finds that because all of the above described park alternatives are the same size (i.e., approximately 16.5 acres) and essentially occur in the same location as the original Community Park Plan, the environmental issue impacts associated with the park alternatives would essentially be similar to the impacts identified in the EIR. The following are the major differences and issues, which may affect the feasibility of the alternatives (Draft EIR, p. 6-20): The alternatives would require acquisition of additional property not currently under the developer's or City's ownership (alternatives 1 through 5 would require land for the Equity Drive realignment, and alternatives 1 through 4 would require excluded parcel acquisition). · The alternatives do provide a greater buffer between the Community Park and existing Channel Commercial. · The alternatives 1 through 4 do provide for a more efficient park parcel with a greater amount of useable area. 3. Supporting Explanation. These alternatives are typically feasible. They also meet the City and project developer objectives; however Alternatives 1-3 would require land not currently under City or developer ownership. Because Alternatives 1-3 require land not currently under City or developer ownership and could potentially impede the development of the Community Park, they are not the preferred alternatives and should be rejected from further consideration. All of these alternatives do not substantially reduce impacts associated with the original Plan, although they do provide for a greater buffer and more efficient park layouts. ALternatives 4 and 5 should remain under consideration (Draft EIR, p, 6-21). D. CEQA Alternatives 1. Descriptions> Alternative 1 - No Project / No Development An evaluation of a "No Project/No Development" alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2). Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented and the site would remain in its current undeveloped state (Draft EIR, p. 6-21). 2. Finding. The Planning Commission find that the "No Development" Alternative fails to address many of the Goals identified in the City's General Plan. The No R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 38 Project/No Development alternative would restrict development of the project site by not allowing the construction of the uses proposed as a result of the Specific Plan. Land uses within the project area would remain as they are currently and no development identified in the specific Plan would occur (Draft EIR, p.6-21 ). Based on the above rationale, it is determined that the proposed Harveston project would already be creating less impacts compared to the General Plan buildout assumptions. The City of Temecula has become more urbanized, potential sites appropriate for development of specific plan projects have become more scarce. Currently, the proposed Harveston project site is one the last remaining pieces of undeveloped land proposed for a specific plan (Draft EIR, p. 6-24). 3. Supporting Explanation. The assumption that no development at all would occur within the project boundary is an unlikely outcome based on existing zoning and the existing General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative does not meet the Project developer's objectives such as provision of residential, park/recreational and public/institutional (i.e., school) uses. Nor does it meet the City's objectives for the site such as (Draft EIR, p. 6- 23): · Provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for all economic segments of the community; · Develop new residential housing, which is compatible with the character of existing individual neighborhoods and minimizes land use incompatibility; · Encourage the use of Specific Plans in the undeveloped areas of the community; and · Ensure that a full range of public facilities and services are provided to meet the needs of the community. · Provide a complete and integrated mix of residential, service commercial, recreation, public and open space land uses. · Provide a land use pattern and intensity of development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking. Ensure that right-of-way dedication is provided to meet the City's long-term circulation goals and needs as identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. it is, however, environmentally superior to the proposed project and remains under consideration (Draft EIR, p. 6-23). E. Other Alternatives Not Analyzed R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 39 Alternative 2 - Development Under Existinq General P an/ZoninR The Harveston project proposes 1,921 dwelling units, which is below the general plan buildout of 39,658 dwelling units. Additionally, the proposed number of vehicle trips from the Specific Plan is lower compared to the buildout of the General Plan. The site has a SP zoning designation and has been analyzed as a Specific Plan area under the General Plan EIR. The currently proposed Specific Plan has made minor changes to existing General Plan land use configurations by shifting certain uses around. The following lists the major differences in the Harveston Specific Plan (Draft EIR, p. 6-24): Location of the community park has changed from a more internal location to be moved adjacent to the service commercial (across and adjacent to Ynez Road) to provide more Citywide visibility of the park. · The currently proposed specific plan includes more open space and recreation facilities than depicted on the General Plan land use map for the site. A riparian habitat is proposed, as an Arroyo Park to preserve and enhance the US waters and Fish and Game streambed. The Arroyo Park contains an area of 13.8 acres and is located across Date Street, within Planning Areas 10 and 11. Development under existing General Plan/Zoning would not be an environmentally superior alternative because the environmental impacts would be more significant than the proposed project. No further analysis is warranted (Draft EIR, p. 6-24). Alternative 3 - Alternative Location This alternative considers locating the proposed project at a different site. This alternative is required by CEQA and is intended to evaluate the option of the development of the proposed project at another site. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, any alternative site evaluated herein must have similar characteristics as the project site including size, landform, and amenity opportunities. Development would include the same type of use, density, and intensity as the proposed project site (Draft EIR, p. 6-24). With regard to alternative locations for a Project, the CEQA Guidelines state that such analysis should be performed if "significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project in another location" (Section 15126[d][5][B]). This EIR does not consider an alternative site for the following reasons: (a) Since the Project covers such a large area (549.5 acres), a similar site with existing infrastructure improvements, and one that is not already master planned for urban development, does not exist within the City of Temecula; and (b) Locating the same project at another site would not avoid or lessen the identified unavoidable significant (i.e., air quality) of the project; (c) the project proponent could not reasonably acquire an alternative site (Draft EIR, p. 6-24). Due to the fact that the City does not have a comparable area within its jurisdiction, the alternative location would not be a viable option. No further analysis is warranted (Draft EIR, p. 6-24). R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 4O Section 6. Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council must balance the benefits of the Specific Plan against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to recommend approval of the Harveston Specific Plan. If the benefits of the Specific Plan outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable." The City Council hereby finds that the Draft EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that will occur as a result of the Specific Plan. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Draft EIR and Specific Plan, these effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section 4 of these Findings. The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Specific Plan. The City Council finds that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR and/or Specific Plan could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Specific Plan that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this Planning Commission finds outweigh the unmitigated. The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Specific Plan to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Specific Plan, and having weighed the benefits of the Specific Plan against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the Planning Commission has determined that the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Specific Plan outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: The Specific Plan will allow the orderly, well planned development of the Harveston site, providing a range of housing types complementary to existing development in the City (Specific Plan, p. 3-1 & -5). The Specific Plan introduces a "unified project design" with standards and requirements for architectural forward residential development (Specific Plan, p. 10-68). The Specific Plan will provide for the development of a Village Center concept that centralizes activities, consistent with General Plan policy (Specific Plan, p. 3- 1). The Specific Plan will provide over 75 acres of active and passive recreational park space (i.e., the lake as a central theme) (Specific Plan, p. 3-1, -6 & -7). The park recreation and open space provided by the Specific Plan is in excess of twice the open space uses provided for in the existing General Plan. The Specific Plan will integrate into the community an open space network comprised of parks, paseos, and connecting pedestrian/bicycle routes (Specific R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 41 Plan, p. 3-6). The Specific Plan will include a 16.5-acre Community Park with four lighted 300' baseball/softball field with 2 full size soccer field overlays; 100 parking spaces within the park off Equity Drive; 25 parking spaces within the park off the Loop Road; large snack bar/restroom facility (1,800 square feet); small restroom adjacent to tot lot and picnic areas; and ball field and park lighting to be approved by the City. The Specific Plan will provide for the development of neighborhood and community commercial centers to provide needed services and reduce the number of cars traveling across the City for these services (Specific Plan, p. 3-5 & -6). The Specific Plan will provide housing to meet anticipated population growth throughout the Temecula Valley (Specific Plan, p. 3-1 & -5). The Specific Plan has provided for a new elementary school site prior to the construction of the first dwelling unit (Specific Plan, p. 3-6). 10. The Specific Plan will provide for the improvement of currently inadequate regional flood control facilities to provide 100-year storm protection (Specific Plan, p. 5-1). ll. The Specific Plan has provided in accordance with CFD 98-01 roadway improvements consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element and Specific Plan 3-7. 1:2. The Specific Plan accomplishes and implements the Temecula General Plan goals and policies (Specific Plan, p. 2-2 & 3-9). 13. During the life of the project, the Harveston Specific Plan will pay approximately 27 million in special tax pursuant to CFD 98-01 to finance the design and construction of public improvements currently serving the City in areas adjacent to the Harveston Specific Plan. 14. The proposed General Plan Land Use Designations allocated a total of 53.7 acres of open space compared to the existing General Plan Land Use Designations which allocated 25.4 acres of open space. The proposed general plan land use designations exceed the existing general plan land use designation of open space by 28.3 acres. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Specific Plan outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Specific Plan which cannot be mitigated. The Planning Commission further finds that each of the Specific Plan benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the Planning Commission to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 42 The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council. The City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: long-term and short-term project and cumulative air quality impacts. B. Conclusions 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6.1 above. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Specific Plan. Section 7. Selection of Project Alternatives The City Council hereby adopts Circulation Alternative I - Cherry Street Interchange and directs that the final Harveston Specific Plan be modified to reflect this selected alternative. Section 8. Adoption of Recommendation for the Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Section 8.0 of the Final EIR and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. Section 9. Location of Records The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 43 Section 10. Effective Date The Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 14th day of August 2001. ATTEST: .Jo ¢,c I' [SEAL] /~ '"'"~,~ff Comerchero, Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CiTY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 01-70 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS Roberts, Stone, Comerchero NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Naggar ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN I COUNCILMEMBERS: PraE "~,,..._.~x,.~ity Clerk R:/Resos 2001/Resos 01-70 44 EXHIBIT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 45 R:xS p~Harveston SP\City Council'xRESO CC EIR Findings.doc Z © Z © Z © Z 0 Z © Z © Z 0 0 z ':9, ~ .- Z © Z © 0 Z © Z © Z © 0 Z © Z 0 0 0 ©