Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout070908 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours priorlo a meeting will ~,, enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting (28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ~~ ADA Title II]. AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JULY 9, 2008 - 6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 2008 -33 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Commissioner Guerriero Roll Call: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is athree-minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 Establish a Planning Commission Sub Committee for the Temecula Creek Inn project RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Appoint Commissioners and to the Sub Committee for the Temecula Creek Inn project PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may fife an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 2 Planning Application No. PA07-0335 a Development Plan application for a Mercedes Benz auto dealership with associated service bavs and car wash Christine Damko, Case Planner RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA07-0335, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT ATWO-STORY 80,395 SQUARE FOOT MERCEDES BENZ AUTO DEALERSHIP LOCATED ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND WAVERLY LANE WITHIN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN (APN 916-400-002) 2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled PC RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE FLETCHER JONES MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE FLETCHER JONES MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND WAVERLY LANE WITHIN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ITEM 2 -- - STAFF REPORT -PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: July 9, 2608 PREPARED BY: Christine Damko, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA07-0335, a Development Plan for atwo- SUMMARY: story Mercedes Benz auto-dealership encompassing a showroom, auto-service facility, and associated car wash facility totalling approximately 80,000 square feet, located on the northwest corner of Ynez Road and Waverly Lane within the Harveston Specific Plan RECOMMENDATION: Approve with Conditions CEQA: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to supplement the previously approved Harveston EIR Section 15163 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Garth Blumenthal representing Fletcher Jones Motorcars General Plan Harveston Specific Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Service Commercial Existing Conditions! Land Use: Site: Vacant North: City of Murrieta; vacant land zoned commercial/office/open space South: Vacant land zoned Service Commercial East: Single-family residences within Harveston Specific Plan West: 1-15 Freeway Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio Landscape Area/Coverage: Existing/Proposed 13.31 acres .13 30% Min/Max Allowable or Required 30,000 square feet minimum 40 maximum Parking Required/Provided: 968 proposed 20% Four spaces per service bay; equivalent of five spaces per 20 feet of internal washing capacity; one space per 1,000 square feet of gross outdoor sales area BACKGROUND SUMMARY The applicant submitted a Development Plan application on December 12, 2007. The Development Plan proposes atwo-story Mercedes Benz auto-dealership encompassing a showroom, service facility, and associated car wash facility totalling approximately 80,000 square feet. The showroom and service facility are designed as two separate buildings, which are architecturally connected together by a covered service drop off area. The car wash and carwash lobby area are also contained in seperate buildings. City staff and the applicant worked together to achieve a high quality site plan and design. Staff completed an Initial Study at the beginning of the process and it was determined that a Supplmental EIR (SEIR) would be required for CEQA compliance. Approximately 100 employees (at full operation) would work at the proposed dealership on a daily basis. The proposed showroom operation hours would be from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m, seven days per week. The automotive service center would be open to the public Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and closed on Sundays. Deliveries to the dealership would occur throughout the hours the project is open. Due to the close proximity of Harveston residences in the area, the City held two Harveston Community meetings regarding the Mercedes Benz proposal. Below lists a summary of these two meetings. The January 29, 2008 meeting encompassed a discussion regarding an overview of Harveston land uses, specifically within the service commercial zone (Planning Area 12 of the Harveston Specific Plan). The proposed conceptual site plan and elevations were shown along with aerials and descriptions of exisitng Mercedes Benz dealerships located near residential areas. Staff discussed the project timeline and encouraged residents to voice their concerns. Residents were concerned with potential outside loudpseakers, increased traffic, and lighting. The May 19, 2008 meeting involved a review of the previous meeting and resident concerns. Staff discussed how resident concerns would be mitigated along with a brief discussion on the SEIR. The site plan and elevations were also shown. The meeting concluded with a discussion of the project timeline including opportunities for public comment, and questions from the residents. Questions and comments From the residents were positive and favorable to the project. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Site Plan The project conforms to the development regulations of the Service Commercial zone within the Harveston Specific Plan. The building setbacks meet the minimum setback requirements required and the FAR of .13 is far below the .40 maximum. The 13-acre site is well designed for the dealership to take advantage of the freeway frontage while providing the adjacent residents with a substantial buffer. The showroom and service building are pushed to the western property line providing an entry statement along the freeway corridor. To reduce the appearance of a large building mass and to create building footprint variety, the showroom and service facility are designed as two separate buildings and are architecurally intergrated by a solid canopy. The canopy will serve as a service drop off area for customers. The car wash facility and lobby area are also seperate buildings to allow for additional footprint variation. An extensively landscaped patio along with a putting green is provided in front of the car wash z lobby area to enhance the building architecture and to provide shade and leisurely entertainment to customers. The main entry into the dealership expands more than 200 feet in length and is enhanced by extensive landscaping such as Italian Cypress lining both sides of the driveway. A landscaped median is also located within the main entry to contribute to the formal atmosphere. The sales and service areas are seperated from the main entry by the landscaped median, with sales entering by the left lane and service customers entering to the right. Access to the car wash is via the driveway closest to Ynez Road. Emergency access is provided around the perimeter of the site, which will also be used for the drop-off of new vehicles. Approximately 582 of parking spaces would be allocated for display of vehicles and would be situated in front of the showroom. Approximately 50 customer parking spaces would front the southwest edge of the sales and customer service building. Roughly 200 in-service parking spaces would be located in a parking lot east of the automotive service center. Employee parking spaces would be provided in the in-service parking lot along the northern perimeter of the site. The proposed car wash area would include approximately 30 spaces for customer parking. An additional 106 parking spaces would be provided on the rooftop of the sales and customer service building to store new vehicles. The total number of spaces provided for sales, service, and customer display is 968 spaces. The City's Development Code requires 4 spaces per service bay (which totals to 160 required spaces); along with the equivalent of 5 spaces per 20 feet of internal washing capacity (which totals to 10 spaces). The City's Development Code does not have specific parking standards for auto dealerships due to the vast array of parking needs for the various types of dealerships. The industry standard of parking for auto dealerships is 1 space per 1,000 square feet of gross outdoor sales area. which totals to an estimated 131 spaces required for the project. As part of a Condition of Approval to provide public art, a City of Temecula monument sign will be placed on the slope below the dealership facing the northwest side of the freeway. Details of the sign are further provided below. Citv Monument Sign As earlier discussed, the project proposes a City Monument sign facing the southbound I-215 freeway. The monument sign would be constructed of smooth stucco and will be located on the northwestern slope of the property. The sign will be approximately 75 feet long and 10 feet tall. Letters will be brushed aluminum, back lit, and measure 60 inches tall. The proposed sign design was reviewed and supported by the Infrastructure Beautification Committee on June 10, 2008. Architecture The proposed buildings meet the design standards within the Harveston Specific Plan. The buildings meet the 50-foot height requirement and all roof top mechanical equipment will be screened. Overall, the two-story buildings would stand 28 feet high. The Specific Plan does not list architectural styles for the service commercial area in an effort to allow creativity and variety to the building designs. The architectural style of the buildings takes on a modernistic design with clean, dramatic lines and timeless elements. The buildings are constructed of smooth grey painted stucco and is well-detailed offering layers of movement to break up the mass of the approximate 80,000 square foot building. In addition, the showroom and service facility is designed as two separate buildings to reduce the large mass and to create variation in the building footprint. These buildings are architecturally integrated by a solid metal canopy that will be used as a vehicle drop-off area. The showroom incorporates a dramatic glass rotunda inviting customers to the main entry and continues at the rear of the building. Angled floor to ceiling glass windows encompass the west elevation of the building to showcase new vehicles. An outdoor patio and balcony are also located on the northwest side of the building offering a break in the building facade. It is anticipated that the outdoor patio area would be used to host both customer and community events. Angled metal trellises are used not only to add architectural interest but to add shade to these spaces. The Mercedes Benz logo and signage is well integrated into the building and contributes to the facade variation by introducing a color change in a complimentary blue shade. signage is located on the east and west elevation of the sales building and on the east elevation of the service building. The showroom is connected to the service building by a solid metal canopy that is used to provide a seamless transition from showroom to service. The service department continues the modernistic theme by incorporating a metal "skin" material on portions of the building. Pop-out columns, split-face CMU block on the base of the building, color changes, and windows add variation and interest to the approximate 40 service bay elevation. The car wash and associated lobby continue with the same color and material scheme. The car wash lobby is further enhanced by a dense and lush landscape palette that aims to provide a relaxing waiting area for customers. The project will be a certified LEED building offering environmentally sensitive elements such as permeable pavement, water efficient fixtures, and natural lighting via a large expanse of carefully positioned windows. It is important to note that the design of the Mercedes Benz dealership must be approved by Mercedes Benz corporate. The corporate office requires certain elements for every dealership such as the blue columns in front of the showroom, the entry portal element into the showroom, and the design and location of the Mercedes Benz symbol. The applicant has worked hard on achieving outstanding architecture while complying with the corporate requirements. Landscaping The landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Harveston Specific Plan. Fourteen species of trees such as Australian Willows, Purple Leaf, and Holly Oak and 22 species of shrubs such as Indian Hawthorne, New Zealand Flax, and Privets are proposed for this site. The Harveston Specific Plan requires a minimum of 25 feet (including afive-foot wide sidewalk) of landscape buffer along Ynez Road. The project provides a minimum of 25 to over 40 feet of landscaping for further buffering between the car dealership and the residences. Access/Circulation The project proposes to extend a private street from Waverly Lane with a temporary turnaround at the southwest corner of the property. Access to the proposed car dealership will be provided by three access points located off the private street from Ynez Road. The first access, which is located closest to Ynez Road, is intended for those customers visiting the car wash. The access centrally located onsite is dedicated as the main entry. As part of Fletcher-Jones operations, a greeter is placed at the beginning of the entry to greet and direct all customers coming to the site. Customers interested in a new vehicle will be directed to the left of the a building and those need car service will be directed straight ahead to the service area. The last entrance will be used for emergency access and new car drop-off. The emergency access drive wraps around the entire site. The Fire Department has also reviewed the plan and determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on June 28, 2008 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and based on an initial study, it has been determined that a Supplemental EIR would be prepared for the project. The Supplemental EIR includes mitigation measures and statement of overriding considerations. In the areas of air quality, noise, and traffic there are instances where environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. These areas are discussed below: Air Quality: Cumulative air quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of the related mitigation measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Noise: Construction noise impacts coupled with the potential construction noise from the 30 other development projects currently in the planning process located within the vicinity of the project, has the potential to cause a significant cumulative impact which will remain significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation. Traffic and Circulation: The project would have a direct impact on the Margarita Road! Winchester Road intersection during the P.M. peak hour, which would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) with the addition of the project which would increase the traffic delay at this intersection by two seconds or more. This impact is significant and unavoidable. The proposed project would result in cumulative traffic impacts by increasing the delay by two seconds or more at each of the following intersections: I-15NB Ramps/Winchester Road, Ynez Road/Winchester Road, and Margarita Road/Winchester Road. No mitigation is feasible at these three intersections. Thus, the impact at all three intersections is considered significant and unavoidable. Staff has carefully reviewed all environmental impacts of the proposed project and further finds that the project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and the applicant's needs of developing a Mercedes Benz dealership.More specifically, the proposed Project will implement the commercial element of the Harveston Specific Plan by providing ahigh-end Mercedes-Benz facility of high architectural quality that will be aesthetically pleasing and energy efficient with LEED certification. The proposed project would also provide employment opportunities in the City of Temecula and enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment. Finally, the proposed Project will promote high-end economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue for high quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements. For all of these reasons, the staff supports the project as proposed. FINDINGS The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning Commission finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable construction noise direct and cumulative impact, the cumulative air quality impact, and the direct and cumulative traffic impacts. In making this finding, the Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The Planning Commission finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. A. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar or greater impacts, or do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. The development of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz automobile dealership would provide the residents of Temecula and the surrounding area an additional source of new temporary employment opportunities in the construction trades and short-term/permanent employment opportunities in high-end retail and service jobs which would in turn stimulate the local economy. C. The proposed Project would generate additional sales tax revenues and would promote general economic welfare within the City. D. The Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz dealership would enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community. E. The proposed Project would implement the commercial element of the Harveston Specific Plan with a use that will provide desired services to the residents of Temecula and enhance the Specific Plan area and would be compatible with the surrounding Harveston residential community. The Planning Commission finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Commission further Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project benefit unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the F impacts to be acceptable. The Planning Commission furth listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the these unavoidable environmental impacts. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) finds that each of the individual discussed above outweighs the anal EIR and therefore finds those 'r finds that each of the benefits Planning Commission to override The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected within the Harveston Specific Plan and the City of Temecula General Plan. The project is located within a Service Commercial zoning designation of the Specific Plan, which permits the sale of automobiles. The proposed auto dealership has also been carefully designed to be sensitive to the adjacent residences. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in the Harveston Specific Plan. The proposed architecture and site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the commercial development standards within the liarveston Specific Plan. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation, architectural design and site plan design. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner that is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. ATTACHMENTS Aerial Map Plan Reductions Resolution -Development Plan Exhibit A - Drak Conditions of Approval Resolution -SEIR Certification Exhibit A -Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit B -Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) Responses to Comments (on website) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (on website) Notice of Public Hearing AERIAL MAP PLAN REDUCTIONS o, ~! 4 4 ~y3~~~, .pt:. Cie,,:..,. i i ,=: . ,,; r;':. ': x-. F ;;-5, i~ ~:~:'. z 0 4 w z } Q a' Z H U W N E g 8 S r s. ~, 0 s E s „/ ~' i ~ ~~, .. N 5 U `~ X 3 Y E ~ N S u~ ~~~ ~! `\ a ,,,,':ill r. .,,,,~ ~:~~ .171 D s a5 7 s ~.. ,:: ~i;. ~.: ~ .~ ~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~~' ' }f' q ~: s y t- s' YY i ~ ~_ ~ r ~i - t~.,, ' ~ " °fs . r ~( '~ 4~~~ 5 ~ Y ~ N ~ ~ ~i O~ b b t E g b Y C yY C V C C O~ U a V G E 3 0 m Fc 5 w i 1'3 W n d ~ i~~~ x:~.l, ~-~1 W~3e3o ~.!!t' ~ i V i 1 1 ~yl , g = I I II I I I I: ~~" ~ I l i a. ,_ ~ a 9 ~~ ~ p. , ~ ~• ~~ ~ lii~l`~ff6~N~i~101611~1!{iiii6~t+i~~,'~11~ il~,~~,b~..°~ ~~ ~ . +. ~ ~~~e „~,~~ ~ III ~ ~ ~ y . 3 ~ ,~ ~ _ BhW3NB3b ~' ~ ~ ii ~ u~~% h y TL `^, i ~ u r ~~ - d i ., ',f ~. ~; a ~ ~ i ,. „ _~ . B n o ~ ~ - f ~t, I y (7 N J Z R~ 1 ~~ ~. aw O¢ UW -1 ~ s ~ - U - ~!I~~ Ay •~ - t ~~-F ~ a ~; ~ ,, ~ ~ ,~ f 1- U IY~~} ~~ `r ~ ~ ile 9~ \ 3i g ~~, '-; iii{ ; ,ieai as{. w ~ . .~ Y tl~ead~ ~ _ 5~~~~~6 ~i i k \ f ~ ~ /' a i/ %~ _ i i / !' . // __~ ~,' h r . ;; '_ ~ - - -- __ % F ~-- 1 1: !! ! i W', O.1 f YI~€t H_ ~I~ 3:iFs u.a~k~4 ~ ~ ~ ~11• 1 1, v -~- 1 ,:...e„a...rrtt.. ~~'' ',111111 ~'k- ~ ` S ~ 111 1 1 1 11 ~ ~ ~_~ do f ,' ,s~1 h nlf.taud ~ssi~il;.iss ~ r i{II{!{d~{tle~li it{{{{{~~~ 1111{rC!Sii s ~n~u3as3u wnmw j ~a-es .ivs -----.,.. «~.. su,maao Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz 3oW"'"'°°~`S°~` c6rm~ a 60603 Tekp6aa: 312.436.01:7 Pace0wle: 312.436.O1ia Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz ~j FUSCOE a.,,,....w.,„. @~d.....,-. IM~0.IS~0.UCN0.E FACTOR mKSUinuc, uc. JUNE 19, 2008 !~~ Temecula, CA aroov YO~~ 30Jf11l~~~ N~lY~p vJ~l^ 1 zuaq-Sapaa]ajN sago f iayaia~ ,,~~ ~~; ~ ;:: ~ ~' ~ 1 y u 4 ~_ t 1 S :i~t E~ €- . ~ i 3 4F a!:~ 4 ae i~ ~ 31 ~€„~ g @ @I dl p E~E a~ dl € 9 ~ 6 i AiF .... a fe$$~ a 3 ~ ~~ ~F ~~ E 9 ~ ] ~_ ~~ =6 !! g 333 333 j fi[ aa re_ YSY ~13 a}': 6 ...... eYr yy t~t 4 ~ E0E 1 g x :.: is 3 . ~g 0EB 1 B 1 6 .lx e ! ! ! ! ~S~ ~: 33 #: 3~~ 3~~ $e ~n ~ ~ 4 ~ 5 € s . i $ $ ~ 9~~9 ~~ [ ..:. ~ ---.-- ~ F F .. 3 Y•E - a q.Y a ~ ~ ~ - a ~_ ~! ~ pp pgpg ae ~ .. 35~~_se F ~i~ .., ~ ~B 31 €€ $$ ~ @ ~ 6 4 ~ a 9 ~ ~ t ee. 9 t gg ~ L. 1 : l A ii p IE 5 ~F ~ .... S .o-o . 5 : 5 EA ~ ~ ~ F 9a E e~ ,ee. e ~ ee a e~ e 5 € i~ 8 _9 9 u4 4 1 AAa e € a ° $ € g g e€ ~ ~4 ..... ~A .Y. Y i4 Y . 3 1 } i .Y .. < E .. ,. ... # Y.. ; }tl} ~ AAA 3 1 34} 4~ 4 ~3P3 ~3tl3 j~ AAEA E P AAA E Y A A A8 fi8 A A Eb BB 8E B 3 p AF E 5` 1 tl3 q q q ~~ tl! 5 y y tl3 ~ tl 4 ABAA A f AAA 9 i A A tt ~ e0 fib 8 S e8 AE 0A B ~ $ AA B 4 f A 5 5 ~ ~ ~ }}} 3 8 9}0 9 9 0 G I ~ 1 ~ tl 8880 F~ 080 8 Y B A Y B8 BA B Y BA BB 80 A v 08 A ~ [tl[ @ 430 A i 393 4 $ 4 3 [ a iiei a F --. ~ ~ fiOEA A ~ 8AE F ~ i c } A8 0H A 9 BE AA AA B A A0 E '{~{ ` A~Ap' p~p ~ ~ tl ~ ¢~ £ ~ { ( ~ g A F[~~ ~ ~ q 585 29~ i~ A~A 29~ i3~ i~ A ~ ~ !~ rye{~ g~F3 5 ~ E A ..: a B .xx ~ i x e € .x .s i ~:1 ~q i i9 a ~ ~ F8 e F E ~ E € F 9 ~ § 7 € 5: E a 1 (7 F j b, 1 i ~~~ ~ ~,y;3 11,' ~~ O y ~3~1 I I•• I --~,.. ~ ~ ~_~ ,;. ~,. ~ ~ _ ~' t ri '~ ~' , l , ~ si a ~5 9 si e ~ ~ ~ il~~ ~ q$q$ ~ ~a a~ G[. ~ : ~ ~ ~tI AI i 3 ©II ~ S 1 J. `. q z e ~bb~b~ ! ~i i ~; d `~ t° " fi! ~~~ l~~e , q q ~ \ ~. ~~ ~" ~ 1 ~ \ ~ ~ ,, ~ 1, `` ,, ~~ _ ~-8 ~~ m - ~-?- ~ ~- - O- ~- I I I I I-~I' O O O O O O w 3~ct h 0 0 ~,\~~, ,, ~- ~~,. ~ ~ ."X" (y~_. L~ -~-- ., ~ -~ O O O CJ ~ O k $=e f ~ ! ~ C 33 1 ~'~ ~ t°. jfi ~8 m _~.; ', 333 0° Yy4 ~ ~ m Y ~ Y \a ~~ ~- , - O'~ «,_ ~ .~ _ ~ ~~ n/ - ~ ~ / '/ ~ ~ ~ S~PV\GE~P\V~tPPF~C j ~~ J ~ ~ ~ / ~i ~ ~ (~l (~ i _ \ ~ I d '~~s ea ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ` R \l ~ I ~ I I - --- I ~ ~\ a S it Ir ~.-n ~ _._ i- V 1 p' ~': ~\ _ r~ v ~-/ _ ~ ~ 1 -- - ~ _ ~ ~ ~--•E ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ g® -- -- -- - ; ~~, 6- r- ~ ~;- ,; -- - ~ ~ ~ e ~ S ` --1~ fop ~_ _ ~- -= ~~, ~ - ~, , _, _. _, ~, ~ ~ ~, - - a UY.4 < LLl ~ ........ ...... Z ~ ~ i i ~'; ~ ' ,~ ~~i 0 P k,: ~ _ y ~ 3 Y9 ~ a~ W ~ p ~!'~ © ~I, 1 ~ ~ 1 R Fi t p] 4 2 ¢d u i ~~ f s siE:t ~ ~~ FR •~ m W 3~ ~® i i i 9i;~ 9i ~~ ~~' .. .~ ~e~_.__.. _.. ,.... ~o ®~ y 4 °9~ I ~'~ a i m Fi~aa C b ~ b b ~ ~ b '~ to ~~s '~~i ~R7;1 ~ a, taza r,: 00 m. ~ \~ ,, i \ ,\ ,-, ,\ i ~ ... i ao. ~. 8~ ~ .(€) B ~/- / / \~ \~ / \ ~ ,, ~ ~ .b ~ ,{ „ , ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ p P - ~9i I11 ~~3 ~ !ha ~~ +~y~m ~ ~ .w`` \ ~ \ ~ j~ ~ =~ '\, P o- ,.\ 0 / ~ ~ ~ ~ ,- °~ , - ~ ~ i i i -i i i o-- - -- -- -~~ - ~ - -~-- T °- -i ~ i ~i i ~ i i i ,i i, i i ~ J O- - - ~~ ~a b b ~ ~ ~ b ~ ! d:: 4 e* .e ~ ! {;; Ii: ~~y ~~~ 1 ~i(~~©~'' i i t 1 ~ N m 1 z 6 : 9 i~ ~! 3iC i 33 3 pp I I~ ~e ®--- o- - - ~i ~E i 4~ 3~ ~~ o- - ~ ;~, sly ! ~~~ , I ~~~ ~- e~ }e 99 2p ~ ~ '- 1 V •E ' ~ f~9 ~ ~ gg ¢ S 53 3~ E! i ~ s! fa ~ ~E adi €-~F ~~~ a :~ ~~ ° ~ ~ ~~ y l~ ~e y F3 ~ ~ ~ @ I A- ~ff ^ ; l)''p~ -~ ~- i~ g ~i€7 9 q q9 ~ ~j €EE ~ i ~ i€E ~€ pf a y 4 ~ ~ V ? ~ ~ ~ ' !..}' • ~ I j ~ ~ !~ f~ i-a 1 pp ~ 3 4 EF I ' ~i~~, ~ i~ _ s3 S ~ i. ~Fi ® a~ 5 ~-~~ - ~ I € m -_ ~~ - i ~S ~ Id }I ~ I (~ ~ v - - F~ I I ~ ~55E ~6 Y Sii 3`n~ e ~~ ~r o- ~ i ~ ~ ~ 3 g ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~P ~ ~ 4 yy ~ 7~~ 36~ !€ ~ CSC ~~ ;1~.z f~~ 'li! ~~9 3rtY: ~i©~ ~ 1 i 1 F ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~p~t~ 7 I ~~ q I I ~3 ~ I ~ iSt ~ ~ Q---- --- I sa ®_- ~1 ~- ~~ -~-- ~~ 3Cf ~ 6 9 I I ~~3 o- y~~ _ F ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ Fc Q_ . ~~e 3~3 P[ 33 ~ G ,~; g ~ i~ ~! 3c ~ ~"'' ~ y V ~~ '~~ ` rv m itlp!»AUx _ - _ ~~r ~ °m..~....e . _. ..... ~A.w ~.,,. .~.W ~ . ~,w. r-. _ __ __ _ _ _ "~' ~___ K0. _ . .~-__ ~4h ~_ _ ._.~ .__ __. ____ - . __________ _ __.__ .. o e m u a ei ~~ E Iri1YAa)3193M a~rayac "` .,~ .. ~ .,~.T-- ------ --- - - -- b b b ~~ Z ~, NnIN~ row+~*w~. zuag-sapaa~ayv sauor.wyaJa~ ~ ~ .~ -,~„ Na1YA3T315y33a1Atl35 then m w..... ... wYC...r - wA..r. _.~ __ ~ .. :{:.~ .W. O -~,v,~ ~m :, ,; ~:: z ~. ~ k E~ I NI g 3~ ... ~i f~ f~ PC RESOLUTION -DEVELOPMENT PLAN PC RESOLUTION NO. OS- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA07-0335, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT ATWO-STORY 80,395 SQUARE FOOT MERCEDES BENZ AUTO DEALERSHIP LOCATED ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND WAVERLY LANE WITHIN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN (APN 916300-002) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On December 12, 2008 Garth Blumenthal representing Fletcher Jones Motorcars, filed Planning Application No. PA07-0335, Development Plan in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. .The Application was processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. On July 8, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matter. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Fletcher-Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project, adopting Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.050.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City; The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected within the Harveston Specific Plan and the City of Temecula General Plan. The project is located within a Service Commercial zoning designation of the Specific Plan, which permits the sale of automobiles. The proposed auto dealership has also been carefully designed to be sensitive to the adjacent residences. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in the Harveston Specific Plan. The proposed architecture and site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the commercial development standards within the Harveston Specibc Plan. The proposed project has met the pertormance standards in regards to circulation, architectural design and site plan design. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner that is consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Development Plan, for the construction of a Mercedes Benz auto dealership: A. A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from May 26, 2008 to June 26, 2008. B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Supplemental EIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced on May 26, 2008, and expired on June 26, 2008. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Planning, located at City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. C. Two written comment(s) were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings. Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Application for a Development Plan (PA07-0335) to construct atwo-story 80,395 square foot Mercedes-Benz Auto dealership located on the North West Corner of Ynez road and Waverly Lane within the Harveston Specific Plan. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 9th day of July 2008. John Telesio, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of July 2008, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SCANNED: G DRIVE: PERMITS PLUS: INITIALS: PLANNER: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA07-0335 Project Description: A Development Plan for atwo- story approximately 80,000 square foot Mercedes Benz dealership located on the northwest corner of Ynez Road and Waverly Lane within the Harveston Specific Plan Assessor's Parcef No.: 916-400-002 MSHCP Category: Per Development Agreement DIF Category: Per Development Agreement TUMF Category: Per Development Agreement Approval Date: July 9, 2008 Expiration Date: July 9, 2010 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project PL-1. The applicanUdevelopershsll deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($2,670.75) which includes the Two Thousand Six Hundred-Six Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($2,606.75) fee, required by Fish and Game Cade Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty-Four Dollar ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developerhss not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). PL-2. The applicant shall review and sign theAcceptance of Conditions ofApproval document that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an original signature to the Planning Department. General Requirements PL-3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. PL-4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. PL-5. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; othervvise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. PL-6. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan and associated Harveston EIR. PL-7. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to the Harveston (Winchester Hills) Development Agreement and subsequent amendments. PL-8. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Harveston Specific Plan EfR and Mercedes Benz Supplemental EIR. PL-g. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. PL-10. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. PL-11. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. PL-12. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved color and materials board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the color and materials board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. PL-13. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. MATERIAL Smooth Stucco Steel Columns Perforated Metal Screen Metal Grate CMU Block LOCATION Main body of showroom and service buildings Showroom Service building accents Awnings on service building (48" deep) Service building base and rear COLOR Blue/White/Grey Blue Metal with clear anodized finish Grey metal Natural PL-14. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved the Director of Planning. PL-15. The applicant shall install the required number of bicycle racks per the City Development Code. PL-16. Per the Harveston Specific Plan, an entry monument shall be installed on the corner of . Ynez Road and the future road. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) PL-17. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. PL-18. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. PL-19. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notifythe property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is anarchaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." PL-20. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. PL-21. All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. PL-22. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre-grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30-day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Department approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." PL-23. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PL-24. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking fot to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. PL-25. All downspouts shall be internalized. PL-26. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. PL-27. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating that "Two landscape site inspections are required: One inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for final planting inspection." PL-28. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." PL-29. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. PL-30. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/ owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. PL-31. Automatic irrigation shall be installed for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. PL-32. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include specifications indicating that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. PL-33. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. PL-34. All WQMP treatment devices, including design details, shall be shown on the construction landscape plans. If revisions are made to the WQMP design that result in any changes to the conceptual landscape plans after entitlement, the revisions will be shown on the construction landscape plans, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. PL-35. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision; however, solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Director of Planning approval. PL-36. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide athree-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. PL-37. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape (choose or add to as appropriate) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. PL-38. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." PL-39. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on anine-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard nine-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit PL-40. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping the covered mansard roof element or other screening reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. PL-41. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptabletothe Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. PL-42. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. PL-43. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner s expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (951) 696-3000." PL-44. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least three square feet in size. PL-45. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed. PL-46. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PL-47. The applicant shall submit an updated and final LEED checklist to the Planning Department. PL-48. The City monument sign shall be installed to the satisfaction ofthe Community Services Director. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT General Conditionsllnformation B-1. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2007 edition of the Califomia Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2007 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. B-2. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building B-3. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. B-4. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. B-5. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. B-6. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. B-7. Commercial and industrial project trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. B-8. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance Number 94-21, specifically Section G(1) of Riverside County Ordinance Number 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays. Prior to Submitting for Plan Review B-9. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings. At Plan Review Submittal B-10. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review. B-11. Provide number and type of restroom fixtures, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Plumbing Code. B-12. Provide precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. B-13. Provide truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) B-14. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction B-15. Apre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector priorto the startof the building construction. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Conditions/Information CS-1. The trash enclosure shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as, regular solid waste containers. CS-2. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. CS-3. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, landscaping, walls, fences, entryway medians, street lights on private streets and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. CS-4. TCSD shall review and approve the CC&R's. CS-5. A five-foot wide path- of stabilized decomposed granite shall be provided for maintenance access to the City monument. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) CS-6. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. CS-7. Prior to the first building permit or installation of public street lighting, which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the advanced energy fees. CS-8. An irrevocable offer of dedication shall be provided for a future trail easement along the northerly 15 feet as shown on the grading plan. All costs shall be borne by the developer. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements F-1. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. F-2. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial bui{dings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure fora 4-hour duration. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). F-3. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. A combination of on-site and off site 6" x 4" x 2-2'/:" outlets on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). F-4. Fire Department Connections (FDC's) and Post Indicator Valves (PIV's) shall be required on the address side of the building(s). They shall be within 50-feet of a public fire hydrant. F-5. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.4) Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) F-6. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 1410.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. When temporary fire apparatus access roads are approved by the Chief and provided for use until permanent fire access roads are installed, the fire apparatus roads shall be an all weather surface for an 80,000 Ib. GVW (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F-7. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F-8. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2.7. and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F-g. This development shall maintain two points of access, via all-weathersurface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.1.2). F-10. Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. Fire Department turn around radius is 45-feet outside and 37 feet inside. (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2.5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) F-11. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 14, Section 1412 and Chapter 5, Section 501.3). F-12. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. F-13. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy F-14. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) per City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E. F-15. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial buildings shall have a minimum of 12-inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of 6- inch high letters andlor numbers on both the front and rear doors. (CFC Chapter 5, Section 505.1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F-16. A "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shalt be installed a minimum of six feet in height above finished floor, and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5, Section 506). F-17. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5, Section 506). F-18. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.3). F-19. Buildings housing high-piles combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of California Fire Code Chapter 23 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire Department access roads (CFC Chapter 23 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section J). F-20. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health Department and the Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 34 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-21. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Temecula Fire Department a Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and inventory. A full hazardous materials inventory report and color coded floor plan is required for any building storing or using hazardous materials (CFC Chapters 28 through 44, Appendix Chapter 1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-22. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable. F-23. The applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in an ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plan NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements PW-1. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. PW-2. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. PW-3. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. PW-4. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-way. PW-5. All improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. PW-6. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent post-construction water quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent non-permitted runoff from discharging off site or entering any storm drain system or receiving water. PW-7. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be accepted by the City prior to the initial grading plan check. The WQMP will be prepared by a registered civil engineer and include site design Best Management Practices, (BMPs) source controls, and treatment mechanisms. PW-8. The Applicant shall comply with the DevelopmentAgreement for the Harveston Specific Plan and all subsequent amendments. PW-9. The Applicant shall comply with the all underlying Conditions of Approval for the Harveston Specific Plan No. 13 (PA99-0418) as approved on August 14, 2001. PW-10. The Applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions ofApproval forTentative Tract Map No. 29639 (PA00-0295) as approved on August 14, 2001. PW-11. All onsite drainage facilities shall be privately maintained. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) PW-12. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the commencement of grading. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect the site {public and private) and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. PW-13. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works in accordance with Grading Ordinance Section 18.24.120. PW-14. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soil conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. PW-15. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. PW-16. The developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the developer. PW-17. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control. PW-18. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of construction activities. PW-19. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Planning Department, or other affected agencies. PW-20. The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. PW-21. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. PW-22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. PW-23. The developer shall obtain letters of easements and/or use for any off site work performed on adjoining properties. The easements shall be in format as directed by the Department of Public Works. PW-24. The developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PW-25. Improvement plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum overA.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Number 207A. c. Streetlights, shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Number 800. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public streetfrontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Number. 400. e. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Number 113. f. All street and driveway center line intersections shall be at 90 degrees. g. Public street improvement plans shall include plans and profiles showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and Flowline grades. h. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. PW-26. The developer shall construct all public improvements outlined in these conditions to City of Temecula General Pian standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. PW-27. Improve Street "A" (Harveston Specific Plan -Industrial Collector - 78' R/W) from Ynez Road to the southerly parcel boundary with a interim turnaround to include dedication of full street right-of-way, installation of full street improvements, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). PW-28. The developer shall construct all public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works including street improvements, which may include, but not limited to, pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drive approaches; streetlights, signing, striping, sewer and domestic water systems; under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines; and storm drain facilities. PW-29. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered civil or traffic engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. PW-30. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered civil engineer, and the soil engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. PW-31. The developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy PW-32. The project shall demonstrate the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for immediate implementation. PW-33. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works the developer shall receive written clearance from Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, or other affected agencies. PW-34. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. PW-35. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. PW-36. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. PC RESOLUTION - SEIR CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE FLETCHER JONES MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE FLETCHER JONES MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND WAVERLY LANE WITHIN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN . THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: A. Garth Blumenthal, representing Fletcher Jones Motorcars, filed Planning Application No. PA07-0335, Development Plan, which application is hereby incorporated by reference. The Project applicant proposes to develop atwo-story dealership showroom building, auto service facility, car wash facility, private street, and associated parking and landscaping on the 13.97 acre project site. Proposed Project development would total approximately 80,000 square feet of building space to house the dealership including car maintenance, repair services, and a car wash B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the Authority and principal responsibility for approving the Project. C. The City proceeded with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR°) for the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz Project pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163 because the project site falls within the Hanreston Specific Plan which was the subject of a separate EIR (SCH# 1999041033) and only minor additions would be necessary to make this previously certified EIR adequately apply with regard to the Mercedes-Benz Project. D. In addition, a Supplemental EIR is in compliance with CEQA for the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz Project because the conditions as described in Public Resources Code 21166 and in CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163 exist because the development of a Mercedes-Benz dealership on the Project site constitutes new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR, and the development of the Mercedes-Benz Project causes one or more potentially significant effects not previously addressed in the Specific Plan EIR. 11086-0153\1061949v2.doc E. The previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR involved extensive environmental review on a variety of environmental topics for both the current project site as well as the surrounding area covered by the Harveston Specific Plan. As such, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the prior Specific Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference to the extent any mitigation measures articulated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are applicable to the Mercedes-Benz Project site. In addition, the mitigation measures in this Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be adopted as conditions of approval of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz Project to the extent they are applicable to the project site. However, no mitigation measures regarding afair-share contribution to regional traffic improvements systems shall be applicable to the Mercedes- Benz Project as this fair-share contribution has been satisfied by the original developer applicant. Additionally, any mitigation measures regarding specific infrastructure improvements identified in the Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been satisfied and are therefore not applicable to the Mercedes-Benz Project. The Harveston Specific Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are available for public review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. F. In addition to the prior Harveston Specific Plan EIR, the project site and the surrounding Harveston Specific Plan Area is the subject of a development agreement entered into between the City of Temecula, and Lennar Homes, Inc. and Winchester Hills, LLC (collectively "ownerr) in 2001. This prior development agreement provides certain vested rights to the owners. The subject site is part of the Harveston Specific Plan that is addressed in the development agreement and all action taken by the City with regard to the Mercedes- Benz project site, including CEQA environmental review and required mitigation, is in full compliance with all legal rights articulated in the development agreement. G. On January 15, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("Draft SEIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants. The NOP requested comments from the public and the comment period was extended through February 18, 2008. H. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and from the Native American Heritage Commission. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft SEIR. I. On January 29, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9, the City sponsored a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR. J. On February 21, 2008, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the NOP was re-circulated due to an increase in the anticipated building area from 65,000 square feet to approximately 80,000 square feet. K. On May 19, 2008 an additional community meeting was held to solicit further public input and comment on the proposed Project. L. On May 26, 2008 the State Office of Planning and Research approved a 30 day public review period for the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz Project of Temecula SEIR (SCH# 11086-0153U061949v2.doc 2 2008011052) determining that such a review period is consistent with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code. M. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft SEIR dated May 26, 2008, the City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on May 26, 2008. N. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft SEIR at the City's library and made copies available for review at City offices. O. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft SEIR, the City received two (2) written comment letters from the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game, both of which were responded to by the City Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact ReporUResponse to Comments document (Final EIR). R. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and CEQA Guideline 15088, the City provided its responses to all public agency comments 10 days prior to any certification of the SEIR. O. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the SEIR 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. R. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Project 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. S. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section III, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 11086-0153\1061949v2.doc T. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as potentially significant but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section IV, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. U. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section V, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. V. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Exhibit A, Section VI, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. W. A discussion of the project 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 Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 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. X. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered and has exercised its independent judgment on the proposed final EIR and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings and finds that the final EIR is adequate and was prepared in full compliance with CEQA. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the SEIR under CEQA requiring additional public review because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, California, hereby certifies the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, adopts findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of Project approval, and incorporates by reference the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR (SCH# 1999041033), and imposes all mitigation measures therein that are applicable to the project site as conditions of Project approval. City staff shall implement and monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C and those applicable to the Project site from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the Harveston Specific Plan EIR. 11086-OI53\l061949v2.doc 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 9th day of July, 2008. John Telesio, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske Secretary {SEAL} 11086-0153\1061949v2.doc EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.' Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project and related actions (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Supplemental EIR. These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the Supplemental EIR and all of its contents, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Supplemental EIR, and staff and consultants' reports presented to the Planning Commission. II. Proiect Obiectives. As set forth in the Supplemental EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula and the Project Applicant seek to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: City's Objectives: A. Implement the commercial element of Harveston Specific Plan with a use that will provide desired services to City residents and enhance the Specific Plan Area and be compatible with the nearby residential area. B. Provide employment opportunities that support local businesses and the strong residential property values that the City of Temecula enjoys. ~ Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; l4 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091. C. Enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community. D. Promote high-end economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue for high quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and preserve the unique character of Temecula. Applicant Objectives: E. To better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz customer base in the City. F. To expand the Mercedes-Benz market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. G. To construct ahigh-end facility of high architectural quality, complimentary to the Temecula image. The Supplemental EIR found that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation for the following environmental topics. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of these environmental topics based on the more expansive discussion in the Supplemental EIR. A. Aesthetics The Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings from a state scenic highway. 3. The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. 4. The Project would not result in any cumulative aesthetic impacts. B. Air Quality 1. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. 2. During Project operation, the Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 3. Localized carbon monoxide hot-spots would not result due to increases in localized traffic volumes. 4. The Project would not create objectionable odors. 5. The Project would not conflict with implementation of the state goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and would not have a negative effect on Global Climate Change. C. Noise 1. Traffic associated with operation of the Project would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways used to access the dealership. 2. The Project in connection with other development Projects in the region will not increase cumulative operational noise impacts to a level of significance. D. Biological Resources 1. Implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any listed, candidate or special-status plant species. 2. Implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a listed, candidate, orspecial-status ground dwelling wildlife species including the Stephens' kangaroo rat, Los Angeles pocket mouse, burrowing owl, and coast patch-nosed snake. 3. Implementation of the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and would not interfere with any established wildlife corridors or nursery sites. 4. Implementation of the proposed Project would not have substantial effects on any sensitive natural communities or on any federally protected wetlands. 5. The proposed Project would not cumulatively contribute to a significant biological resources impact. E. Traffic and Circulation 1. The proposed Project would not result in inadequate vehicular and emergency access. 2. Project implementation would not result in inadequate parking capacity. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant With Mitigation The Supplemental EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, global warming, noise, biological resources, and traffic. With the exception of the specific impacts to the significant and unavoidable noise direct and cumulative impacts, the cumulative air quality impact, and the direct and cumulative traffic impacts, measures were identified that would mitigate all of these impacts to a less than significant level. The Planning Commission finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section V below. The Planning Commission adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project. A. Aesthetics Light and Glare Impacts The Supplemental EIR examines the potential light and glare impacts that could be caused by the Project's nighttime operational lighting and the adverse effects such lighting can have on the surrounding Harveston residential community. The Project would include nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. Specifically, astep-down lighting process, compliance with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, and other measures as articulated in the following mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant light and glare impact. Measure 3.1-3a: The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall contain "sharp cut-off" fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal and external shielding. Measure 3.1-3b: The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the Project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle. Measure 3.1-3c: The applicant shall incorporate step-down lighting into the Project to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director. The step-down lighting shall occur each evening at the following intervals: 6:00 p.m., 7:30 p.m., and 10:30 p.m. Measure 3.1-3d: The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. A!I control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. Measure 3.1-3e: The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off-site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. Measure 3.1-3f: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall include design features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. Measure 3.1-3g: The city shall complete apost-installation inspection to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated (such that dealership lighting is not creating excessive glare, unreasonably competing for the public's attention or creating any roadway safety hazard) and that illuminations lighting sources are properly shielded. Measure 3.1-3h: In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps; step-down lighting techniques; shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination; and compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655. (b) Facts in Support of Findings Development of the Project would increase light and glare around the Project site. This light can have adverse affects on nighttime views and the surrounding communities in proximity of the site if not addressed properly. In order to address this light and glare impact, the Project proposes to incorporate various mitigation measures, including a "step-down" lighting regimen that would progressively dim lighting to minimize obtrusive light visible by residents of the surrounding community. The stepdown lighting would occur each evening at the following intervals: 6:00 pm, 7:30 pm, and 10:30 pm. From 10:30 pm to sunrise the Project site would be lit with only security lights. As shown in the images contained in the Aesthetics Section of the Supplemental EIR, incorporating astep-down lighting regimen would reduce new sources of light on the adjacent residences located within the Harveston Community. In addition to the step-down lighting system, the Project would comply with the Riverside County Light Pollution Ordinance, No. 655, the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The Project site is located within close proximity to the Palomar Observatory, and the observatory requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. As such, in conformance with Ordinance No. 655, all artificial outdoor light fixtures shall be installed in conformance with the provisions of the ordinance which sets forth specific requirements for lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures. Lighting for on-premises advertising displays, shall be shielded and focused to minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent properties. This ordinance requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky in order to ensure visibility from Mount Palomar Observatory. Finally, various other mitigation measures which articulate accepted standards by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) a collection of engineers, architects, scientists and other professionals who aim to disseminate information for the improvement of the lighted environment will further reduce any potential light and glare impacts. Thus, with inclusion of the above articulated mitigation measures, any potential light and glare impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. B. Air Quality Construction Emissions The Supplemental EIR discusses the potential for construction-related emissions to cause adverse effects on air quality. Project construction activities would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut-and-fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes adding improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures, and facilities. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, any potential construction-related air quality impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Measure 3.2-2a: The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust control program is imp{emented pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403. Measure 3.2-2b: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2. Spread soil binders: and 3. Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 2. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; 3. Use low sulfur fuel (.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment. D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. Measure 3.2-2c: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following. A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites F. Wash off trucks leaving site. G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building-,materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from storm water especially on super pads. I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. J. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. Measure 3.2-2d: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving. Measure 3.2-2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles be equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Measure 3.2-2f: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to -reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: A. Provision of rideshare incentives B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. E. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. Measure 3.2-2g: Prior to the buildingfconstruction operations, applicant and individual contractors shall commit in writing to the following: A. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 - 8:30 am and 4:00 - 6:00 pm); B. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and C. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The emissions generated from these construction activities include: (1) Dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from "fugitive" sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) such as soil disturbance; (2) Combustion emissions of criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, PM10, and PM2.5) primarily from operation of heavy off-road construction equipment (primarily diesel- operated), portable auxiliary equipment, and construction worker automobile trips (primarily gasoline-operated); and (3) Evaporative emissions (ROG) from asphalt paving and architectural coatings. Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis during construction. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by construction would include not only PM10, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts. It is mandatory for all construction projects in the Basin to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed Project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2a, the Project will comply with Rule 403. NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were estimated for aworst-case day based on default maximum crew, truck trip, and equipment. As analyzed in the Supplemental EIR, none of the construction emissions would be greater than the significance criteria with compliance with Rule 403 as required of the Project by Mitigation Measures 3.2-2a. Finally, as more fully discussed in the Supplemental EIR, Localized Significant Threshold Monitoring (LST) was not performed for this Project due to the small amounts of NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 that the construction of the proposed Project would produce. In sum, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed above, the Project's construction-related air quality impact will be less than significant. C. Noise Operational Noise Operation of the project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the Temecula Municipal Code. However, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, any potential impact will be less than significant. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, any potential operational noise impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Measure 3.4-2a: The City shall ensure that there will be a designated employee from the City Planning Department to coordinate any noise complaints and enforce the City's noise standards. Actions shall be taken to reduce noise levels from project activities that are over 65 dBA and result in noise complaints. Measure 3.4-2b: The applicant shall implement a silent paging system throughout the proposed project to minimize loudspeaker paging noise. (b) Facts in Support of Findings Heating Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment The Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment system for maintaining comfortable temperatures within the proposed buildings would consist of packaged rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dB at a reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. The noise level of the HVAC, if on the edge of the building nearest the sensitive receptors (about 590 feet), would be about 40 dBA. This would be a less than significant impact. Service Center Internal Equipment Noise Power tools, electric machinery, and air compressors would be used within the service center premises for the repair of motor vehicles. The service center would operate only during the daytime hours. Potentially significant noise sources associated with auto service operations include air impact wrenches, tire breakers, and air supply compressors, the noise levels of these sources at sensitive receptor locations are stated below. Impact Wrench Noise Levels A potentially significant noise source at the proposed auto maintenance facility would be the operation of air impact wrenches during tire changes. These wrenches typically produce a maximum noise level of about 88 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. Impact wrenches are used twice for each wheel removal/replacement operation with an average duration of use of 10 - 15 seconds per wheel. The nearest proposed residential property line to the service center is Located at a distance of approximately 1,030 feet to the east. At this distance, impact wrench maximum noise levels are predicted to be approximately 48 dBA without mitigation. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center, proposed dropped ceilings and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences which would reduce these noise levels further. This maximum noise level would not exceed the City's daytime maximum noise level standards and would be less than significant. Tire Breaker Noise Levels Tire breakers are also a potentially significant noise source due to the rapid release of air pressure through a number of small holes adjacent to the fire sidewall. Noise produced by this type of pneumatic fire breaker reaches a brief maximum level of about 105 dBA at 10 feet. Other types of fire breakers, where the rapid air release has been eliminated and replaced with an air/hydraulic control system, produce noise levels of approximately 74 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. For aworst-case estimate oftire-breaker noise generation, it is assumed that the louder type of fire breaker could be used at the proposed facility. Tire breakers are used twice for each fire removal/replacement operation. The average duration of use is approximately 20 seconds per wheel. The nearest proposed residential property line to the service center is located at a distance of approximately 1,030 feet to the east. At this distance, impact wrench maximum noise levels are predicted to be approximately 65 dBA without mitigation. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center, proposed dropped ceilings and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences causing attenuation of at least 10 dBA reducing the predicted level to approximately 55 dBA without mitigation. This maximum noise level would not exceed the City's daytime maximum noise level standards and would be less than significant. Air Compressor Noise Levels The noise produced by air supply compressors varies considerably with compressor size, type, and operating conditions. At similar fire maintenance facilities, reference noise levels were measured at 60 dBA at 50 feet for steady-state compressor operation. The compressors typically cycle on and off intermittently during the work day to meet air supply demands. At the nearest proposed residential property line, located approximately 1,030 feet to the east, the worst-case noise level associated with compressor usage would be 34 dBA Leq without mitigation. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center, proposed dropped ceilings and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences which would reduce these noise levels further. This maximum noise level would not exceed the City's daytime maximum noise level standards and would be less than significant. Car Wash The drying system is the loudest part of a car wash; depending on the system used, a car wash blower could create noise levels of approximately 67 dBA at 50 feet from the exit. At the nearest proposed residential property line, located approximately 1,030 feet to the east, the noise level could potentially be 41 dBA during car drying. To further dampen the noise the exit will face the customer lobby building, thus attenuating the noise levels more. This noise level would not exceed the City's daytime noise level standards and would be less than significant. Paging System Some car dealerships use a loudspeaker paging system that includes outside speakers. Loudspeakers vary in the amount of noise they produce, but at a maximum volume a loudspeaker located 590 feet from residences could produce noise levels of approximately 77 dBA. The applicant is proposing a silent paging system that will mitigate any typical paging system noise associated with automobile dealerships operations. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-2a and 3.4-2b will ensure a less than significant operational noise impact from the Project. D. Biological Resources Effect on any listed, candidate or special status bird species. As discussed more fully in the Supplemental EIR, the proposed Project could have a potentially significant effect on a listed, candidate, or special status bird species. However, with the incorporation of mitigation articulated below outlining the process for apre- construction survey and tree removal, this impact would be less than significant. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-3, this impact would be less than significant. Measure 3.5-3: The applicant shall have a qualified biologist, approved by the City, conduct apre-construction survey for nestinglroosting special-status birds and other nesting birds on or adjacent to the Project site within two weeks prior to construction. The biologist shall report his or her findings to the City, and the biologist, applicant and, if required, the City shall work collaboratively to ensure that the no direct impacts to any nesting birds located within 100 feet of the limits of construction occur, by establishing the construction right of way and removal of plant material outside of the typical breeding season of birds (February 1 through August 31). If construction and vegetation removal is proposed for the bird nesting period February 1 through August 31, then active nest sites located during the pre-construction surveys shall be avoided pursuant to the directions of the biologist, and a non-disturbance buffer zone established dependent on the species. Nest sites shall be avoided with non-disturbance buffer zones approved by the biologist until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. Avoiding destruction of an active nest and establishing anon-disturbance buffer zone around any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Should the nesting of any migratory bird occur on or adjacent to the Project site during grading or construction activities, a City qualified biological monitor shall halt all construction activities and notify the City and corresponding resource agency. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The federal migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, including take of bird nests and eggs. All birds and birds of prey specifically are protected in California under the State Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3503.5, which states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto." Project impacts to these species would not be considered significant unless they are known or have a high potential to nest in the Project area or to rely on the Project site for primary foraging activities during the breeding season. Though there are no trees or suitable habitat present within the proposed Project site, there are several ornamental trees adjacent to the western border of the site at the bottom of the slope, adjacent to I-15. Although it is unlikely, due to the level of traffic and noise near the trees, construction activities could cause disturbance to birds nesting/foraging adjacent to the Project site. No nests were observed during the January site visit. However, the site visit was conducted outside of the breeding season, and therefore results are not conclusive. The project may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on bird species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. Impacts to nesting birds are potentially significant, but can be prevented via pre-construction surveys and associated avoidance measures, as described in Mitigation Measure 3.5-3. 2. Conflict with Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Long-Term Stephens' Kangaroo Rat HCP and City of Temecula Municipal Code. As discussed in the Supplemental EIR, the proposed Project has the potential to conflict with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Long-Term Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) HCP and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. For the reasons discussed in the Supplemental EIR, this impact is less than significant with mitigation. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the potential impact will be less than significant. Measure 3.5-6: The applicant shall pay the $500 per acre SKR mitigation fee set out by Section 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The proposed Project site does not lie in designated critical habitat for any special-status species. However, the Project site does lie within the areas covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the SKR HCP, although it is exempt from the MSHCP. These plans promote the conservation and recovery of biological resources in Western Riverside County and provide coverage for FESA and CESA incidental take for listed species. The Western Riverside County MSHCP is broken into area plans, and cell groups. The Project site falls within the Southwest Area Plan and portions of the site fall within criteria cell 6407 and 6525. Both Criteria Cells were established to contribute to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 which follows Warm Springs Creek. Conservation for these cells focuses on Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat along Warm Springs Creek and the adjacent grassland habitat. Chapter 15.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code establishes mitigation fees for funding the preservation of natural ecosystems within Temecula City limits in accordance with the MSHCP. As previously stated, the applicant is not required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP as a development agreement was obtained for the Project in 2001, prior to the adoption of the MSHCP in 2004. Government Code section 65864 states that only those policies, rules, and regulations which were existing at the time of approval for a developmental project, must be followed by the applicant. The Project site would not affect Warm Springs Creek and does not support Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub or grassland habitat. The project site consists of compacted bare land that has a limited ability to support wildlife species. Due to the presence of only ruderal non-native grassland habitats on the project site and the absence of any special-status species or sensitive biological resources the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Section 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code states that all applicants within the SKR HCP plan area shall conduct a biological survey for the SKR and pay the required impact and mitigation fee. ESA conducted a habitat assessment for the SKR during the January 14, 2008 site visit. No SKR signs were observed during the site visit, and no suitable habitat exists on-site due to the high levels of disturbance and the origin of site soils. No impacts to the SKR are expected to occur. County Ordinance 663.10 regarding the SKR HCP states that "impacts to the Stephens' kangaroo rat are not limited to loss or degradation of actually occupied habitat only." Therefore, direct and indirect impacts to the SKR, including habitat destruction should be mitigated either by on-site preservation of land, or the payment of the mitigation fee. Mitigation fees will be used to finance the implementation of the SKR HCP conservation measures. Although impacts are not expected to occur, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-6 would mitigate for any indirect impacts associated with development inside the SKR HCP fee area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-6 would also ensure that the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the SKR HCP. Due to the lack of suitable native habitat on the project site, and with the payment of any relevant mitigation fees, the project would not fundamentally conflict with the provisions of any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project also would not fundamentally conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 3. Edge Effects of the Project Impacting Warm Springs Creek The proposed Project has the potential to cause impacts to Wann Springs Creek, which could include the introduction of pollutants and toxics into the Wann Springs Creek area due to stormwater and other runoff. Increased levels of light and noise could also impact wildlife species foraging and nesting in the riparian areas surrounding Warm Springs Creek. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the potential impact will be considered less than significant. Measure 3.5-7: Invasive: The City shall review and approve all landscape plans to ensure that no invasive species as identified in the MSHCP or by the California Invasive Plant Inventory shall be used in the proposed project. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The Project site is located on a graded, leveled and compacted parcel of land with little vegetation now present; however it is located approximately 550 feet away from a IvISHCP Conservation Area (Proposed Constrained Linkage 15). This conservation area is associated with Warm Springs Creek and located adjacent to several developed areas, an interstate, and an undeveloped parcel. Project design features would help minimize impacts the Project could potentially have on natural resources, specifically Warm Springs Creek. Project design features include: 1) pervious pavement, which would allow percolation or infiltration of stormwater through the surface into the soil below where the water is naturally filtered and pollutants are removed, and 2) a temporary desilting/water quality basin, located on the southwest corner of the property, would be implemented to collect, treat and redirect surface/storm drainage off the Project site through a temporary storm drain outlet. Treated stormwater flows from this temporary desilting basin would eventually flow towards Warms Springs Creek. Invasive species shall not be allowed in the Project landscape plans. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 3.1-3a through 3.1-3h would direct and focus dealership lighting downward to avoid glare onto adjacent areas and emit low levels of glare into the sky. With these Project design features and the inclusion of Mitigation Measure 3.5-7, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. V. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the areas of air quality, noise, and traffic there are instances where environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. These areas are discussed below. A. Air Quality Cumulative Impact -Construction Related and Operational Based on the more expansive discussion in the Supplemental EIR, the Project region is located in the South Coast Air Quality Management District air basin which is designated as non-attainment for certain air pollutants under the California Clean Air Act. As such, a significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impact will result even with the implementation of mitigation. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. However, even with the incorporation of the Mitigation Measures 3.2- 2(a) through 3.2-2(g) as addressed in Section IV, B. above, construction-related and operational related cumulative impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative air quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of the above mitigation measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The previous EIR completed for the Harveston Specific Plan determined the Harveston Speck Plan incremental contribution to both construction air pollutant emissions and long-term operational air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable, in part because the air basin is designated as nonattainment. As part of the Specific Plan area, both the construction and long-term operational air pollutant emissions of the project would be cumulatively considerable contributions to the significant cumulative air quality impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan. Mitigation measures from the Harveston Specific Plan that apply to this project have been included in this Project to reduce the impact of construction emissions. The Project's incremental impact is less than significant, but even with implementation of the applicable Mitigation Measures 3.2-2(a) - 3.2-2(g) in as addressed in Section IV, B. above, the cumulative air quality impacts of the Harveston Specific Plan cannot be reduced to a level that would be less than significant. As such, the cumulative air quality impact of the proposed Project would be considered significant and unavoidable. B. Noise Construction Noise -Direct Impact The Supplemental EIR examines the potential noise generated by the construction of the proposed project and has concluded that this impact will likely be a short- term significant and unavoidable impact even with the incorporation of mitigation. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. However, even with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the short-term construction noise impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Measure 3.4-1 a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, that no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours: A. 630 pm to 6:30 am, Monday through Friday. B. Before 7:00 am of after 6:30 pm, Saturday. C. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. Measure 3.4-1 b: The applicant shall ensure that 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 pm to 6:30 am unless such equipment is surrounded by a noise protection earthen berm or solid barrier. Measure 3.4-1 c: The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Measure 3.4-1 d: The applicant shall ensure that all signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, a wntact number for the job site, and a contact number for the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department project manager, in the event daytime noise exceeds 65dBA at the exterior of the residences. In that event the City shall have the right to require limiting the number of noisy pieces of equipment used at one time so that the noise level is reduced to the permissible level. Impacts associated with short-term construction noise have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of the above mitigation measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. (b) Facts in Support of Findings Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Pile driving, however, is not proposed for Project development. Based on the proposed Project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 6 dBA will be assumed. Harveston residences are approximately 150 feet from Project construction. The Supplemental EIR indicates that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, if attenuated out to 150 feet, these residences would experience noise levels of about 79 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation, the loudest of construction activities that would occur. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual residences could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by Project structures built in the interim. Construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations. These construction noise levels, especially if they were to occur during the nighttime hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant. The City of Temecula noise ordinance states that no person shall conduct construction activity when the site is within one-quarter mile from an occupied residence between the hours of 6:30 pm and 6:30 am Monday through Friday, and shall only conduct construction between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from noise ordinances because background noise is typically louder during the day than at night, and sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise levels from construction can exceed daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to nearby residential units. Although the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could substantially affect noise levels at nearby residents. Such impacts could last a substantial time before the complaint system would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction noise could at times be a short- term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed Project. 2. Cumulative Construction Noise As discussed in the Supplemental EIR, the proposed Project will create a significant and unavoidable project specific construction noise impact. This construction noise impact coupled with the potential construction noise from the 30 other developments projects currently in the planning process located in the vicinity of the Project, has the potential to cause a significant cumulative impact which will remain significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. However, even with the incorporation of the construction noise mitigation measures as identified in Section V, B. above, the construction noise from the proposed Project coupled with the construction noise from the 30 other development projects in the vicinity wilt create a significant and unavoidable cumulative construction noise impact. The cumulative impact associated with construction noise has been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of mitigation as discussed in Section V, B. above, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. (b) Facts in Support of Findings The Project would result in intermittent and temporary noise above existing ambient noise levels due to construction activities. With implementation of mitigation measures, the Project's noise impact would result in a short term significant and unavoidable impact. While there is the potential for the proposed Project to contribute to construction noise levels generated by the cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 of the Supplemental EIR, the actual schedule and timing of construction activities is uncertain. The proposed Project would coordinate with the appropriate departments of the neighboring jurisdictions to avoid conflicts with other projects to the extent possible, and the Project's contribution to cumulative construction noise impacts, as mitigated, would be considered significant and unavoidable. C. Traffic and Circulation Direct Impacts As discussed more fully in the Supplemental EIR and the accompanying traffic study, the proposed Project would have a direct impact on the Margarita Road/Winchester Road intersection during the P.M. peak hour, which would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) with the introduction of the Project which would increase the traffic delay at this intersection by two seconds or more. This impact is significant and unavoidable. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. However, even with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the impact to the Margarita Road/Winchester Road will remain sign cant and unavoidable. Measure 3.6-1: The applicant shall implement the following improvements at the Margarita RoadlWinchester Road intersection: • Conversion of the westbound through-right turn lane on Winchester Road to a dedicated westbound through lane, and the re-striping of a dedicated westbound right-turn lane would reduce vehicle delay at this location. Impacts associated with the direct project impact to the Margarita RoadlWinchester Road intersection have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of the above mitigation measure, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. (b) Facts in Support of Findings In the Project Completion Year condition, five of the six intersections studied would operate at an acceptable LOS. The intersection that would not operate at an acceptable LOS is the Margarita Road/Vllinchester Road intersection, which already operates at an unacceptable LOS in its existing condition. Since the Project would increase the delay by more than two seconds at the Margarita Road/Winchester Road intersection that already operates at an unacceptable LOS, the Project applicant would be required mitigate the additional impact. The improvements recommended in Mitigation Measure 3.6-1, above represent the only physically feasible mitigation for this intersection, and would not result in an acceptable LOS during the peak PM hour. Additional improvements are not feasible at this intersection and project impacts are significant and unavoidable. 2. Cumulative Impacts The proposed Project would result in cumulative traffic impacts during the cumulative condition by increasing the delay by two seconds or more at each of the following intersections: (1) 1-15 NB RampslWinchester Road (LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours); (2) Ynez RoadJWinchester Road (LOS F during the PM peak hour); and (3) Margarita Road/Winchester Road (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours). No mitigation is feasible at these three intersections, other than that already articulated for the project specific direct impact at the Margarita RoadNVinchester Road intersection. Thus, the impact at all three intersections is considered significant and unavoidable. (a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 incorporated into the Projecl to lessen the project specific direct significant impact at the Margarita Road/Winchester Road intersection is also applicable for this cumulative impact. However, no other feasible mitigation measures are available for the three intersections. The roadway improvements that are not feasible are as follows: • I-15 northbound ramps/Winchester Road. Geometric improvements such as, additional eastbound and westbound through lanes (four through lanes in each direction), are not feasible due to right-of-way constraints. • Ynez RoadNVinchester Road. Geometric improvements. such as, a westbound through lane and dedicated westbound right-turn lane, dual southbound right-turn lanes and an additional southbound through lane, and an eastbound free-right-tum lane, are not feasible due to right-of- way constraints. • Margarita RoadlWinchester Road. The applicant shall complete the following improvements: Conversion of the westbound through-right turn lane on Winchester Road to a dedicated westbound through lane, and the re-striping of a dedicated westbound right-turn lane would reduce vehicle delay at this location. However, these improvements would not result in an acceptable LOS (LOS D) during the p.m. peak hour. This improvement would build-out the intersection to its ultimate configuration. Additional geometric improvements such as, additional eastbound and westbound through lanes (four through lanes in each direction), and a northbound free-right turn lane, are not feasible due to right-of-way constraints. Cumulative impacts associated with the three intersections have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, because no mitigation is feasible, the impact at the three intersections will remain sign cant and unavoidable. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings regarding alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effects after available Supplemental EIR mitigation measures are implemented are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. (b) Facts in Support of Findings In the Cumulative condition, only three of the six intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS. The three that would not are: (1) I-15 NB ramps/Winchester Road (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours); (2) Ynez RoadNVinchester Road (LOS F during the PM peak hour); and (3) Margarita Road/Winchester Road (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours). The Project would increase the delay by two seconds at each of the abovementioned intersections. Because no feasible mitigation can be incorporated into the Project to alleviate these three cumulative traffic impacts due to roadway right of way constraints, the impact to these three intersections is considered significant and unavoidable. VI. Proiect Alternatives. A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the EtR The City considered a range of reasonable alternatives as discussed below and in the Supplemental EIR. In determining what alternatives to analyze, the City considered, but rejected one other alternative, the alternative site alternative. An alternative site alternative was considered in the Temecula Auto Mall, but was not available for acquisition by the applicant, and for this reason, was not carried forward into the alternatives analysis. Therefore, this alternative was rejected as infeasible. The EIR however did undertake an analysis of six other potential project alternatives. These six alternatives were also rejected for the various reasons stated below. B. Alternatives Considered in the EIR Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative (a) Summary of Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, construction of dealership facilities identified under the proposed Project would not be implemented. The designated service commercial lot would remain undeveloped and unused. As previously stated, because there are multiple variations as to how the Project site could be developed under the current plans for the site, Alternatives 3 through 6 illustrate the type of development that could occur on the Project site if the Project were not approved. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative In comparison to the proposed Project, implementation of the No Project Altemative would eliminate all the adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. The No Project Alternative would allow for existing conditions to persist. However, the No Project Altemative would not meet any of the Project objectives, and would maintain current conditions, as no development would take place on the vacant lot. Fulfillment of the Harveston Community Plan Service Commercial designation would not occur in this area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. 2. Alternative 2 -Reduced Project Alternative (a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative a reduced Mercedes-Benz dealership of approximately 40,000 sf would be constructed, as opposed to approximately 80,000 sf under the proposed Project. Under Alternative 2, building development would occur on the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the I-15 freeway, identical to the development under the proposed Project. Under the reduced project, approximately 50 percent of the site would be developed on with dealership building(s) and associated facilities. The remaining undeveloped space would remain vacant. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative This alternative would have overall reduced impacts in comparison to the proposed Project, including a reduction in aesthetic impacts, air quality impacts, global warming impacts, reduced construction and operational noise impacts, biological resources impacts, and overall reduced traffic impacts. However, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the applicant's objectives set forth, and would not adequately serve its expected customer base. Alternative 2 would also provide fewer employment opportunities (a City objective). For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. 3. Alternative 3 -Alternative Development as Retail Use on the Project Site (a) Summary of Alternative The Project site has been designated as Service Commercial within the Harveston Specific Plan. As detailed in the Harveston Specific Plan, this designation is specifically intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. As such, potentially allowed commercial uses on the proposed site could include home improvement stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and grocery stores. Additional potential uses under the Service Commercial zoning could include restaurants and offices. Thus, under Alternative 3, a retail use equivalent to 283,000 sf (0.5 FAR -allowed under the Service Commercial designation) would be constructed on the Project site. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative The retail use equivalent under Alternative 3 would likely have increased noise, global warming/climate change and air quality, and traffic-related impacts, but have similar impacts related to aesthetics and biological resources, when compared to the Project. Altemative 3 would meet the City's objectives of implementing the Harveston Specific Plan and providing employment opportunities, however, it would not meet the applicant's objectives to better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz customer base in the City, and would not meet the applicant's objective to expand Mercedes' market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. 4. Alternative 4 -Reduced Retail Use Development on the Project Site (a) Summary of Alternative The Project site has been designated as Service Commercial within the Harveston Specific Plan. As detailed in the Harveston Specific Plan, this designation is specifically intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. As such, potentially allowed commercial uses on the proposed site could include home improvement stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and grocery stores. Additional potential uses under the Service Commercial zoning could include restaurants and offices. Thus, under Alternative 4, a retail use (commercial/restauranUoffice) equivalent to 170,000 sf (0.3 FAR), equally apportioned, could reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Under Alternative 4, a development of this usage and size would likely have increased traffic, global warming/climate change, noise, and air quality impacts, but have similar impacts related to aesthetics and biological resources, when compared to the Project. Development under Alternative 4 would not reduce any of the impacts associated with the Project. Alternative 4 would meet the City's objectives of implementing the Harveston Specific Plan and providing employment opportunities, however, it would not meet the applicant's objectives to better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz customer base in the City, and would not meet the applicant's objective to expand Mercedes' market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. 5. Alternative 5 -Alternative Development as Office Use on the Project Site (a) Summary of Alternative The Project site has been designated as Service Commercial within the Harveston Specific Plan. As detailed in the Harveston Specific Plan, this designation is specifically intended to provide for intensive commercial uses and is also zoned to potentially accommodate the development of offices. Development under the Alternative 5 scenario would include office building(s) totaling approximately 283,000 sf (0.5 FAR) on the Project site. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Development under Alternative 5 would likely result in similar aesthetic and biological resources impacts compared to the proposed Project. It is likely that traffic impacts under Alternative 5 would increase, and thus, noise, global warming/climate change and air quality impacts would increase. Development under Alternative 5 would not reduce any of the impacts associated with the Project. Alternative 5 would meet the City's objectives of implementing the Harveston Specific Plan and providing employment opportunities, however, it would not meet the applicant's objectives to better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz customer base in the City, and would not meet the applicant's objective to expand Mercedes' market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. 6. Alternative 6 -Reduced Office Use Development on the Project (a) Summary of Alternative The Project site has been designated as Service Commercial within the Harveston Specific Plan. As detailed in the Harveston Specific Plan, this designation is specifically intended to provide for intensive commercial uses and is also zoned to potentially accommodate the development of offices. Development under the Alternative 6 scenario would include office building(s) totaling approximately 170,000 sf (0.3 FAR) on the Project site. (b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Development under Alternative 6 would likely result in reduced air quality and noise impacts compared to the proposed Project. It is likely that traffic impacts under Alternative 6 would increase. The level of impacts associated with the other areas analyzed would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Although development under Alternative 6 would reduce some of the impacts associated with the Project and meet the City's objectives of implementing the Harveston Specific Plan and providing employment opportunities, it would not meet the applicant's objectives to better serve the existing Mercedes-Benz customer base in the City, and would not meet the applicant's objective to expand Mercedes' market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative Of the alternatives evaluated above, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative with respect to reducing impacts created by the proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines also require the identification of another environmentally superior alternative if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Of the five remaining project alternatives, Alternative 2, the Reduced Project Alternative is the environmentally superior altemative. However, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the Project objectives, and is therefore rejected. D. The Project As Proposed 1. Summary of Project The Project is described in detail in the SEIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The Planning Commission has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the EIR and has compared them with the proposed Project. The Planning Commission finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth above. The Planning Commission further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the project goals. More specifically, the proposed Project will implement the commercial element of the Harveston Specific Plan by providing ahigh-end Mercedes-Benz facility of high architectural quality that will be aesthetically pleasing and energy efficient with LEED certification. The proposed Project would also provide employment opportunities in the City of Temecula and enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment. Finally, the proposed Project will promote high-end economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue for high quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements. For all of these reasons, the Planning Commission selects the Project as proposed. EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning Commission finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable construction noise direct and cumulative impact, the cumulative air quality impact, and the direct and cumulative traffic impacts. In making this finding, the Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The Planning Commission finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. A. The Planning Commission finds that alt feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar or greater impacts, or do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. The development of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz automobile dealership would provide the residents of Temecula and the surrounding area an additional source of new temporary employment opportunities in the construction trades and short-term/permanent employment opportunities in high-end retail and service jobs which would in turn stimulate the local economy. C. The proposed Project would generate additional sales tax revenues and would promote general economic welfare within the City. D. The Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz dealership would enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community. E. The proposed Project would implement the commercial element of the Harveston Specific Plan with a use that will provide desired services to the residents of Temecula and enhance the Specific Plan area and would be compatible with the surrounding Harveston residential community. The Planning Commission finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Commission further finds that each of the individual Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The Planning Commission further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the Planning Commission to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, a public agency is required to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to a proposed development. As stated in the Public Resources Code: `...the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting andlor monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined prior to final certification of the EIR. The public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or a private entity, which accept delegations. The lead agency, however, remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occur in accordance with the program. The mitigation monitoring table below lists mitigation measures required of the project in order to reduce the significant effects of the project. These measures will also be included as conditions of approval for the project. These measures correspond to those discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.6 of the Draft Supplemental EIR; and reflect any revisions in this document. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and the various City of Temecula departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is set up as a compliance report, with space for confirming the correct mitigation measures have been implemented for the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula project. In order to sufficiently track and document the status of mitigation measures, the matrix below has been prepared with the following components: • Mitigation measure • Monitoring phase • Enforcement agency Monitoring agency • Action Indicating Compliance • Verification of Compliance (for use during the reportinglmonitoring) Information pertaining to compliance with mitigation measures or any necessary modifications and refinements will be documented in the verification of compliance portion of the matrix. The mitigation matrix follows this section. The City proceeded with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") for the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz Project pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163 because the project site falls within the Harveston Specific Plan which was the subject of a separate EIR (SCH# 1999041033) Fle~d~er Jones Mercetles-Benz of Temewla 1 ESA 1 ~20TT61 Mitigation Monilonng antl RepoNnp Pmgrem June 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Program Compliance Report and only minor additions would be necessary to make this previously certified EIR adequately apply with regard to the Mercedes-Benz Project. In addition, a Supplemental EIR is in compliance with CEQA for the Fletcher Jones Mercedes- Benz Project because the conditions as described in Public Resources Code 21166 and in CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163 exist because the development of a Mercedes-Benz dealership on the Project site constitutes new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR, and the development of the Mercedes-Benz Project causes one or more potentially significant effects not previously addressed in the Specific Plan EIR. The previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR involved extensive environmental review on a variety of environmental topics for both the current project site as well as the surrounding area covered by the Harveston Specific Plan. As such, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the prior Specific Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference to the extent any mitigation measures articulated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are applicable to the Mercedes- eenz Project site. In addition, the mitigation measures in this Specific Pfan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be adopted as conditions of approval of the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz Project to the extent they are applicable to the project site. However, no mitigation measures regarding afair-share contribution to regional traffic improvements systems shall be applicable to the Mercedes-Benz Project as this fair-share contribution has been satisfied by the original developer applicant. Additionally, any mitigation measures regarding specific infrastructure improvements identified in the Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been satisfied and are therefore not applicable to the Mercedes-Benz Project. The Harveston Specific Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are available for public review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. Fletcher Jones Mercetles-8enz of Tememla Z ESA ~ D207761 Mitigation Monitoring arM Reporting Program Jwre 2008 and FLETCHERJONES OF TEMECULA SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring Mitigation Measure Phase Aesthetics Measure 3.1.3a: The applicant shall ensure that all Pre- lighting fiMures shall contain "sharp cut-off" fixtures, and Construction / shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal and Construction '... eMernal shielding. '. Measure 3.1-3b: The applicant shall ensure that all fiMures shall be parallel with the fnished grade of the ' Project site, no fMUres shall be tilted above a 90•degree angle. Measure 3A 3c: The applicant shall ensure that step- ''. down lighting shall be incorporated into the Project to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director. The stepCOwn lighting shall occur each evening at the following '~, '~ intervals: 6:00 pm, 7:30 pm, and t0'30 pm. Measure 3.7-3d: The applicant shall ensure that site ~', ~'~. lighting systems antl showroom lighting shell be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night ~,. light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be ' i controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. Measure 3.1-3e: The applicant shall ensure that the design and layout of the site shall lake advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off-site '. architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. '. Measure 3.1-3f: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall include design features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area Measure 3.1 -3g: The city shall conduct apost-installation ~' inspection to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated (such that dealership lighting is not creating '~, excessive glare, unreasonably competing for the public's '~ attention or creating any roadway safety hazard) and that Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks City of ~ City of Temecula ', Temecula Building Official or other ', Designee Illuminations lighting sources are properly shielded. ~, ___ _. Issuance of Building Permit, review of plans, field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula ----- -L_._. NOTE: The Fletcher Jones Mercedes-eenz of Temecula SEIR is also required to comply with the MMRP for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR to the extent the mitigation measures are applicable to this Project site. Fletcher Janes Mercedes-Benz of Temecula t ESA 1201161 Mitigation Nmnitoring end Reporting Program June 2008 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FLETCHER JONES MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mldgation Measure Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Measure 3.1.3h: In order to mitigate potential impaas to I, ', '. the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be i reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure '. '~, ', sodium vapor lamps; step-down lighting techniques; ', ~ '~, I shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination; and '~... '. I '. compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655. ' ''~ '. Air Quality Mitigation Measure 3.2.2a: The applicant shall ensure Pre- SCAOMD City of Issuance of that a fugitive dust control program is implemented ''. Construction / Temecula Grading Permit ', pursuant to the provision of SCAOMD Rule 403. '... Construction Building '~... and feld ~.. Official or verification and ''~ Mitigation Measure 3.2-2b: Prior to grading and other sign-off by City of '' construction, the applicant shall be responsible for Designee Temecula compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, ~ '~, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. '~, '.. B. Aker clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to forma ',. crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent tlust '~. pick up by the wind. I 2. Spreatl soil binders: and 3. Implement street sweeping as necessary. ' C. During construction: '' 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to '. '. prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 2. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; 3. Use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment ', '.. D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog ~'.. alerts. NOTE: The Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula SEIR is also required to comply with the MMRP for the Harveston Specific Pian EIR to the eMent me mitigation measures are appliW6le to this Project site. Fletcner Jones Merceces-Beni of Temecula 2 ESA RO]-6t Mitigation Monitoring antl Reporting Pmgrem Juno 200e FLETCHER JONES MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 3.2-2c: Prior to grading and '.. construction, the applicant shall be responsible for ' compliance with the following. A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work '. periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites '~ F. Wash off trucks leaving site. Mitigation Measure 3.2.2d: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the '.... maintenance of the paving. ', Mitigation Measure 3.2.2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for assuring '~, that construction vehicles be equipped with proper ~. emission control equipment to substantially reduce Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Verification of Gompllanee Initials Date Remarks em>ssions _. _.. _.. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2f: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant 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: (Continued) (Continued) ' (Continued) (Continued) ', A. Provision of rideshare Incentives. '. NOTE: Tne Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula SEIR is also required to comply with the MMRP for the Harvesten Spedfc Plan EIR to Mee#ent the mitigation measures are applicable to this Project site. Fletcher Jonas Mercedes-Benz or Temecula 3 ESA 1207761 Mitigation Monitoring antl RaponinB Program June 2006 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progrem FLETCHERJONES OF TEMECULA SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measure Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. I C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize II traffic interference. (Continued) D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. '' E. Use of a Flagman to guide traffc when deemed L. necessary. ''... Mitigation Measure 3.2.28: Prior to the ~I building/construction operations, individual contractors ~'~.. will commit in writing to the following; A. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non- peak trove{ periods (i.e., 7:30 - 8:30 am and 4:00 - 6:00 pm); ~.. B. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and C. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel ~', periods. Noise Measure 3.4-1 a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified Pre- City of Crty of Issuance of in Ciry of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, that no Construction / Temecula '~.... Temecula Grading Permit construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile '~... Construction Building and feed ', of any occupied residence during the following hours: '' Official or '~ verification and I other ~ sign-oH by City of A. 6:30 pm to 6:30 am, Monday thrcugh Friday. Designee I, Temecula '.. B. Before 7:00 am of after 6:30 pm, Saturday. C. At any lime on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. Measure 3.4.1 b: The applicant shall ensure that all j I construction equipment shall use properly operating '~.. mufFlers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps, generators or motors shall be allowed to operate within one quaner (1/a) mile of any occupied residence from ~' 6:30 pm to 6:30 am uniess such equlpmentis surrounded I~. NOTE: Tne Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of TemecWa SEIR is also requiretl to comply with Me MMRP for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR to the extent the mitigation measures are applicable to this Project site. Fletcher Jonas MercetlesBenz of Temecula 4 ESA/ 207761 Mitigation Monitoring antl Reporting Program June 2008 and FLETCHER JONES MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Responsible Aetion Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measure Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Dale Remarks by a noise protection earthen berm or solid barrier. i Measure 3.4-1 c: The applicant shall ensure that all ~' ' construction staging shall be performed as far as possible ' ', from occupied dwellings. ', ', ', '~ Measure 3.44d: The applicant shall ensure that signs ~, '. shall be posted at the construction sites that include ', ~ ' permitted construction days and hours, a contact number '~. for the job site, and a contact numher of the Department ' I ~ of Building and Safety project manager, for the City of ~ ' Temecula in the event daytime noise exceeds 65dBA at '~, '. the exterior of the residences. In that event the Ciry shall I ''. have the right to require limiting the number of noisy ', ' pieces of equipment used at one time so that the noise ' ' ' ' level is reduced to the permissible level. '~.. Measure 3.4.2a: The City shall ensure that there is a Operation ~' City of City of Field verification designated employee from the City Planning Department Temecula Temecula ~I and sign-off by I to coordinate any noise complaints and enforce the City's 'i Engineer or ',. City of Temecula noise stantlards. Actions shall be taken to reduce noise ' '~.. other '' levels from project activities that are over 65 dBA and ~! Designee '.... ',. result in noise complaints. ~. ' ~~ Measure 3.4.2b: The applicant shall implement a silent paging system throughout the proposed project to '~ - '~ minimize loudspeaker paging noise _._ _. ... _. __.. _._ ... ..._ ' __ ,_ .. ..__.. . __. ~ ____ __._~ __.. I ...._ Biological Resources Measure 3.5-3: The applicant shall have a qualified Pre- City of City of Field verification ~.. biologist, approved by the City, conduct apre- Construction Temecula Temecula and sign-off by ' '... '.. construction survey for nesting/roosting special-status '.. ', Qualified City of Temecula '. ' birds antl other nesting birds on or adjacent to the Project ' Biologist site within two weeks prior to construction. The biologist ',. shall report his or her findings to the City, and the I. ',. ' biologist, applicant and, if required, the City shall work '.. ' ' ' collaboratively to ensure that the no direct impacts to any '.. '. ' nesting birds located within 100 feet of the limits of , construction occur, by establishing the construction right I. of way and removal of plant material outside of the typical ''.... ! ' ' ~ breeding season of birds (February 1 through August 31). ~, '. , If construction and vegetation removal is proposed for the '~ '~.. ' bird nesting period February 1 through August 31, then '. ___ i, _ ',. '. NOTE: The Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula SEIR is also requiretl to wmply with the MMRP for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR to the extent the mitigation measures are applicable to this Project site. Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula 5 ESA / 20T761 Mitigation Monitoring end Reporting Program June 2008 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FLETCHER JONES MERCEDES-BENZ OF TEMECULA SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measure Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks active nest sites located during the pre-construction '. i ', ~~. ~ surveys shall be avoided pursuant to the directions of the ', biologist, and anon-distwbance buffer zone established ' ' i dependent on the species. Nest sites shall be avoided ~ ~,. with non-disturbance buffer zones approved by the '', biologist until the adults and young are no longer reliant ''~, ~,.. '~,, ',. on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualifed '~. ' biologist. Avoiding destruction of an active nest and ' establishing a non•disturbance buffer zone around any ', '. active nests on or adjacent to the Project site would ~. ~i '~... , reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than ''.. significant level. Should the nesting of any migratory bird '~ occur on or adjacent to the Project site during grading or I '.. ', ' construction activities, a City qualified biological monitor ''~, shall halt all construction activities and notify the City and '~ ' corresponding resource agency. ', ' Measure 3.5.5: The applicant shall pay the $500 per acre '~.. Pre- '.. City of City of I Sign-off by City of '... '' Stephens' Kangaroo Rat mitigation fee set out by Section Construction Temecula Temecula '.... Temecula 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Qualified '.. '~ , Measure 3.5-7: Invasives~. The City shall review and Pre- City of approve all landscape plans to ensure that no invasive Construction Temecula species as identifed in the MSHCP or by the California ~ ' Invasive Plant Inventory shall be used in the proposed ', project. (Cal-IPC 2006). Traffic and Transportation Measure 3.6-1: The applicant shall complete the following improvements: I Biologist City of ~, Review of I Temecula ', landscape plans ~~ Qualified and sign-off by Biologist ', City of Temecula ', City of City of Issuance of a Temecula Temecula Certificate of Engineer or Occupancy ', other ', '~, '~, Designee ', '. Pre- Construction • Conversion of the westbound through right turn lane to ' a dedicated westbound through lane, and the re- striping of a dedicated westbound right-turn lane would reduce vehicle delay at this location. NOTE: The Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula SEIR is also required to comply with the MMRP for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR to the extent the mitigation measures are applicable to this Project site. Fletcher Jones Marcede•~Banz of Temawla b ESA 1107767 Mitigation Monitoring and Reposing Program June 2006 INITIAL STUDY City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Preparation To: Attached Distribution List Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Temecula Consulting Firm Planning Department ESA 43200 Business Park Drive 9191 Towne Centre Drive Temecula, CA 92589 San Diego, CA 92122 Contact: Christine Damko Eric Ruby Phone Number: (951) 694-6400 (858) 638-6900 The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the Supplemental EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and initial environmental study are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by State law. Your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Christine Damko with the City of Temecula Planning Department at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Mercedes Benz Auto Dealership (PA07-0335) Project Location: City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Project Description: The proposed project is a Development Plan application to construct an 80,000 square foot Mercedes Benz car dealership with incidental car maintenance, repair services, and car wash located north of Date Street and west of Ynez Road within the Harveston Specific Plan. This project was previously noticed as a 65,561 square foot building. As the project progressed, the building size increased by 14,439 square feet. The City of Temecula is therefore re-noticing this Initial Studv and Notice of Preparation for a Supplemental EIR. Director of Planning, Debbie Ubnoske Date G:\Planning12007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Denz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIRINOTICE OF PREPARATION OP A DRAFT EIR- revised.doc City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: DISTRIBUTION DATE: Mercedes Benz Auto Dealership (PA07-0335) February 25, 2008 CASE PLANNER: Christine Damko CITY OF TEMECULA: Building &Safety .......................................... ( ) Fire Department ..............................................( ) Sheriff .............................................................( ) Parks & Recreation (TCSD) ...........................( ) Planning, Advance ......................................... (X) Public Works .................................................. (X) STATE: Caltrans ......................................................... (X) Fish &Game .................................................. (X) Mines &Geology ............................................( ) Regional Water Quality Control Board .......... (X) State Clearinghouse .......................................( ) State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) .................. (X) Water Resources ............................................( ) FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers .............................. (X) Fish and Wildlife Service ............................... (X) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District .................... (X) Western Riverside COG .................................( ) CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning ........................................ RIVERSIDE COUNTY: ............ (X) Airport Land Use Commission ................... .... (X) Engineer .................................................... .....( ) Flood Control ............................................. .... (X) Health Department .................................... .... (X) Parks and Recreation ................................ .....( ) Planning Department ................................. .....( ) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA).... .... (X) Riverside Transit Agency .......................... .....( ) UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District .............. ..... (X) Inland Valley Cablevision ......................... ......( ) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ...... ..... (X) Southern California Gas ........................... ..... (X) Southern California Edison ....................... ..... (X) Temecula Valley School District ............... ..... (X) Metropolitan Water District ....................... ......( ) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ....................... (X) Eastern Information Center ............................( ) Local Agency Formation Comm .....................( ) RCTC ............................................................( ) Homeowners' Association ............................. (X) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz or Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIRINOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR- revised.doc 2 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Pro ect Title Mercedes Benz Automotive Dealershi PA07-0335 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Christine Damko, Associate Planner 951 694-6400 Project Location The project is located adjacent to the northwest corner of Ynez Road and Date Street, abuttin the east side of the Interstate 15 freewa . Project Sponsor's Name and Address Garth Blumenthal, Fletcher Jones Motorcars 3300 Jamboree Road, New ort, CA 92660-8528 General Plan Desi nation Service Commercial SC Zonin Harveston S ecific Plan SP-13 Description of Project The proposed project is a Development Plan application to construct an 80,000 square foot Mercedes Benz car dealership with incidental car maintenance, repair services, and car wash located north of Date Street and west of Ynez Road within the Harveston Specific Plan. This project was previously noticed as a 65,561 square foot building. As the project progressed, the building size increased by 14,439 square feet. The City of Temecula is therefore re-noticing this Initial Stud . Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is currently vacant and has been mass graded under the original Harveston Specific Plan mass grading plan approval. The site has also been continually cleared for weed abatement. The site is surrounded by industrial development and vacant land to the south, existing single-family homes and vacant land within the City of Murrieta limits to the north, existing single-family homes (Harveston develo ment to the east, and Interstate 15 freewa to the west. Other public agencies whose approval None at this time is re wired G:1Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. / Aesthetics Mineral Resources A riculture Resources / Noise / Air Qualit Po ulation and Housin / Biolo ical Resources Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geolo and Soils / Trans ortation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials / Utilities and Service S stems / H drolo and Water Qualit Mandato Findin s of Si nificance Land Use and Plannin None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re wired. / I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that because the Initial Study determines that are no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change in the mitigation measures previously discussed in the EIR for the Harveston Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on the Addendum to a rove the Project. S~ ~ure ~a i/v~ Date Christine Damko City of Temecula Printed Name For G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA1PIanninglElR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 2 m n A > I 4 \\\\ ~ ~~~ \~ \\\`\~~ ~~~\ ~~ ~ -_ -r, ~ 70 ® LOW MEDIUM 51.3 AC. ]OB UNITS /® 'pDroximale vcalion of Interchange O ' LOW MEDIUM 39.1 AO. ~.~ \ UNITS .~_ O ~'a \I B3 UNITS ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 1. Foadway alignment within S<rvice Commerci>I it conceptual. ~ 40W MEDIUM / K 2. The location of Mini Pvzks (MPj iv con<epruvl (1.5 AC. minimum) •\ N.8 AF .•~ C p E E Individual Size vnd progrvm vvuea, 1fiY UNITa ~ S L\ P ~ p 1 ~..~ '~~ G E R 1 '~`..~..~"5 F N 1 h xlrrvrvnazo.e ,~l __ --s~ I~ - >,; Hnrveafon Specific Plan Lenrar Communities LEGEND ---- Specific Plvn Boundvey LOW-MED DENSITY (3 5 du / c max.j (5 7 d / c m.x~) (1310 du./ac. max.) Via.! ~"ti~,°`~a~is~C~Qgc MIXED USE 3.1 Iwti~ I ®1`.~.^. lievu`d~uo`2000 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless less Than Significant Mitigatwn Sgnificanl No Issues antl Su rtin Information Sources Im act Inco rated Im C Im act a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? / b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not / limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic hi hwa ? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or / ualit of the site and its surroundin s? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which / would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: 1.a. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The proposed project is on vacant land. No scenic vistas have been identified per the City's General Plan or will be adversely impacted from developing the prdposed project. 1.b. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: No major rock outcroppings or historic buildings exist on the project site. The project site is not located on a scenic highway. 1.c. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The proposed project site is currently undeveloped and is within an urbanizing area. Residential developments exist to the east and southeast of the project, and commercial development exists to the south of the proposed development while future commercial development is planned just north, within the City of Murrieta. The proposed service commercial development is an anticipated development that the Harveston Specific Plan and original adopted EIR envisioned. 1.d. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated: This project will be constructed in accordance with zoning development standards including maximum height, landscape buffers, and the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. However, due to the close proximity of single-family residences and nature of the use, an analysis of lighting will be required for the proposed development of the Mercedes Benz dealership and mitigation measures addressing lighting may be required. As a result, a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated by the proposed project. G:1Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\PlanninglElR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Tnan Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Su nin Info,mation Sources Im act In rated Im act Im act a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland / of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-a ricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a / Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, / due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use? Comments: 2.a. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less Than Significant Impact: According to Figure 5.2-1 labeled "Agricultural Resources" in the Agricultural Resources, Section OS-30 of the General Plan, the project is in an area of farmland of local importance. However, the site is surrounded by industrial development, the I-15 freeway, and residential homes and there are no other immediate properties in the vicinity of the project which have been allocated for farmland use. The subject site is not currently being used for agricultural purposes, and the City's General Plan Land Use Element has designated the site for Service Commercial uses. 2.b.c. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This properly is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. G:\Planning~20071PAO7-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQAlNITIAL STUDY - revised.doc Q 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Su00oninq Infonnalion Sources Im d Inco rated Im ad Im act a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable / air ualit Ian? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially / to an existin or ro'ected air ualit violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any / criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone recursors ? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant / concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number / of people? Comments: The general impacts related to air quality issues from development of the project as part of the implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages 5-88 through 5-103 of the certified Final EIR. The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the service commercial phase of development, concluded that Air Quality impacts were anticipated to exceed SCAOMD's daily threshold emission levels and would not be reduced to less than significant even with mitigation. Mitigation measures were identified to address short-term and long-term impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the air quality impacts. 3.a.b. Potentially SigniFcant unless Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project is a permitted use under the Harveston Specific Plan. The EIR analysis concluded that once the Specific Plan was fully built out, the final emissions were determined to be at or above thresholds during construction and operation even with mitigation. Because the Specific Plan did not specifically address the proposed auto dealership, a Supplemental EIR shall be prepared to address these specific impacts. 3.c. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project does not include uses or encompass large enough project to cause significant changes in area climate. However, the initial Environmental Impact Study for the Harveston Specific Plan did not specifically address an automotive dealership; as a result, a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated by the proposed project. 3.d.e. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: During construction, the proposed project includes operations that will have diesel odors associated with equipment and materials. None of these odors are permanent, nor are they normally considered so offensive as to cause sensitive receptors to complain. Diesel fuel odors for construction equipment and new asphalt paving fall into this category. Based on the short-term of the emission and the characteristics of these emissions, no significant odor impacts are forecast to result from implementing the proposed project. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CE~A INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 5 -, 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Leu Than Significant Mitigation Signifcant No Issues and Su rtin Information Sources Im ad Into orated Im act Im ad a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or / through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat / or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected / wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interru lion, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native / resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting / biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat / Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: The general impacts related to biological resources from development of the project as part of implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan are forecasted on pages 5-148 through 5-158 of the certified Harveston Final EIR. Several biological studies were conducted to evaluate biological resources within the Specific Plan which includes this proposed project and general scope. A summary of studies and technical reports are included in the certified EIR for the Harveston Specific Plan and are incorporated by reference into this analysis. The EIR concluded that no significant resources were present on the site and that no adverse impacts to the onsite biological resources would result from the implementation of this part of the Specific Plan. The EIR also addressed that alteration of the project areas from their existing conditions, and removal of non-native grasslands would not contribute incrementally at any level of biological significance to general losses of natural habitat within the local area. However, 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 with the implementation of mitigation measures listed in the Harveston Final EIR. However, at the time the EIR was completed, the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was not yet established. The Riverside County Conservation Authority adopted the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) on June 17, 2003. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion in favor of adopting the MSHCP was released on June 22, 2004. The City of Temecula is a signatory to the MSHCP, and therefore, the Mercedes Benz auto dealership is required to G:\Planning12007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 6 comply with the MSHCP. Section 6.0 of the MSHCP identifies the local implementation measures. Section 6.1.6 details the County and Cities Obligations and corresponds with Section 13.2 of the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS. The program requires the City to undertake the following steps to insure compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP: Payment of local development mitigation fees and other relevant fees (Section 8.5) Comply with the Habitat Assessment program (HANS) processor equivalent process to satisfy local acquisition obligation • Comply with the survey requirements (Section 6.3.2) • Comply with the policies of the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2) • Comply with the policies of the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3) • Comply with the policies of the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4) • Comply with the Best Management Practices (Section 7.0; Appendix C) A review of the property and its relation to the conservation goals of the MSHCP concluded that portions of the project site are located in the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP; therefore, it is recommended that a Supplemental EIR be completed to address the impacts of the future development within MSHCP. 4.a. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated: The site is currently disturbed as a result of the mass grading, weed abatement, and -storm water controls completed in compliance with previous Harveston Specific Plan approvals. No biological resources remain onsite. The proposed project would not disturb or destroy any biological resources. There is no blue-line stream currently on site and drainage on site has been altered through the implementation of earlier phases of the Harveston Specific Plan. An additional MSHCP review is required within a Supplemental EIR to address the potential biological impacts from the result of the proposed development. 4.b. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Significant Impact: No sensitive (rare or endangered) plant, invertebrate, fish, amphibian, bird or mammal species are known or expected to reside within, or occur in aresource-dependant relationship with, any portion of the overall site within the Harveston Specific plan. The Harveston Specific Plan occurs within the Stephens kangaroo rat (SKR) habitat conservation plan area, and the Harveston EIR provided mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. However, because the last biological report was completed several years ago, an update report will be required with the Supplemental EIR. 4.c. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated: According to the Harveston Specific Plan Final EIR, the entire Harveston development will impact approximately 2.86 acres of "waters of the United States." No wetlands or riparian plant communities will be affected by the project. The applicant for the Harveston Specific Plan (Lennar Homes) has already obtained a 404 permit from the Army Core of Engineers and a 1603 permit from the California State Department of Fish and Game. Mitigation for these impacts included avoidance and habitat creation. No additional significant impacts are expected from the current proposal. 4.d. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less Phan Significant Impact: The project site is currently disturbed. It is surrounded by other urban uses, existing single family residential, and the I-15 freeway making it isolated from habitat areas and making it generally unsuitable as a wildlife movement corridor. The project site is not located within a wildlife movement corridor and the lack of habitat resources indicate that the proposed project will create a less than significant impact. 4.e.f. Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not interfere with any local or State conservation plans or policies. In fact the project has already been anticipated within the Harveston Specific Plan, Harveston EIR, City of Temecula General Plan and General Plan EIR. However, the project is located G:1Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIRlCEOA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc within a criteria cell of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and it is recommended that a Supplemental EIR be completed to address these issues. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Signifcant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Sgnificant No Issues and Su din In/ormation Sources Im ac[ Inco rated Im aU Im aU a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of / a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of / an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological / resource or site or uni ue eolo is feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred / outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: Cultural Resource studies were submitted and reviewed within the Harveston EIR. Mitigation measures were identified and determined that less than significant impacts related to cultural resources for Harveston including the project site. 5.a.-d. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR' Less than Significant Impact: The project consists of land that has been previously disturbed as a result of maintenance activities and other human related disturbances. Cultural resources of either prehistoric or historical origin were not observed within the site boundaries. However, because of the potential for such resources to occur on the property, the EIR provided mitigation measures for future development to comply with. G:iPlanning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula COPA\Planning\EIRICEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc g 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Su rtin Information Sources Im ct Into rated Im cl Im acl a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involvin i. The rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated / on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Stron seismic round shakin ? / iii. Seismic-related round failure, includin li uefaction? / iv. Landslides? / b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? / c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or / that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral s readin ,subsidence, li uefaction or colla se? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B / of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ro ert ? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of / septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: The general impacts related to geology and soil issues from development of the proposed auto dealership as part of the implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages 5-121 through 5-133 of the certified Harveston EIR. The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the proposed project site concluded that no significant adverse impacts to geology or soil resources would result from the Specific Plan implementation. Several mitigation measures were identified to address the project site geology and soil resource impacts. A geotechnical report of the site was prepared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EIR for the Specific Plan. 6.a.i. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Significant Impact: According to the City's General Plan EIR and the Harveston Specific Plan, the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone as defined by the State of California and County of Riverside. The site could, however, be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the San Jacinto fault or other nearby regional faults. As mitigation measures, the current project will need to comply with the Harveston EIR mitigations of building structures in accordance with the current UBC seismic codes and local ordinances. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\PlanninglElR\CE~A INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 1 Q 6.a.ii-iii. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Significant Impact: The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are surface rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground settlement. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since active faults are not known to cross the site. Lurching due to ground shaking from distant seismic events in not considered a significant hazard. The project will be required to comply with all building code requirements per the State Building Code to help mitigate the risk of damage during strong seismic ground shaking as required in the Harveston EIR. 6.a.iv. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Significant Impact: The Harveston EIR concluded that there is a low potential for earthquake induced landslides or rock falls on the project site because the site and its surroundings are essentially flat. As a result, no impacts will occur and no mitigation is required for landslides or rock falls. 6.b. I~acts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Significant Impact: The proposed development of the project site will expose it to potential erosion and downstream sedimentation. The Harveston Specific Plan and City General Plan require mitigation for erosion control. Further, the State- wide NPDES program requires every project with ground disturbance greater than five acres to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during project construction and operation. 6.c.d. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less Than Significant Impact: The Harveston EIR identified that the project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of this project, and potentially result in on or off-site grading landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The applicant will be required to prepare soils reports prior to issuance of a grading permit. 6.e. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less Than Significant Impact: The Harveston EIR identified that the project site will be served by a sewer collection system owned by Eastern Municipal Water District. G:\Planning12007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc ~ ~ 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Sgnificant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigatbn Significant No Issues and Su rtin Information Sources Im act In rated Im act Im act a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the / environment through the routine transportation, use, or dis osal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the / environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or / acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existin or ro osed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of / hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, / where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro'ect area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would / the project result in a safety hazard far people residing or workin in the ro'ect area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an / adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Ian? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, / injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 7.a Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Signitrcantlmpact: The proposed project will use the existing Ynez Road and a future road to be developed with the project as the ingress and egress point. At this time, there are no hazardous materials proposed for the project. However, all chemicals stored, used, and handled at facilities are required to ensure that proper types of fire and life safety protection systems and procedures in place by the City Fire Department. Therefore, there is a less than significant hazard to the public or environment from the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 7.b. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Significant Impact: It is not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public environment through reasonably foreseeable accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA1PIanning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc ~ 2 7.c. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: No Impact: No schools are located within one mile of the site. The proposed project and construction on the property does not include any activities or uses that would pose a potential health hazard to the local population or the nearby school. 7.d. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: No Impact: The Harveston EIR indicates no past uses that may have involved hazardous materials. 7.e.f. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: No Impact: According to the Harveston EIR and the City's General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. 7.g. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area involving an emergency response or evacuation plan and will be designed to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access to the site. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 7.h. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near wild land area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving wild land fires. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula COPA\Planning\EIR\CEOA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc ~ 3 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unle55 Le55 Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Issues and Su nin Information Sources Im act Incur rated Im act a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge / requirements or othervvise substantially degrade water qualit ? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere / substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which ermits have been ranted ? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site / or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site / or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in floodin on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the / capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of olluted runoff? f. Require the preparation of a Water Quality Management / Plan? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as / mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other Flood hazard delineation ma ? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which / would im ede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, / injury or death involving flooding, including Flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? / Comments: The general impacts related to hydrology and water quality from development of this project site are forecasted on pages 5-138 through 5-147 of the Harveston Specific Plan Final EIR. The Harveston Specific Plan has the potential to result in a long term impact on water quality due to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. Storm water flows from the future Mercedes Benz auto dealership site will be subject to the NPDES permit process, as addressed in the Harveston EIR and is a City requirement. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in cumulative impact to hydrology and drainage issues. Water runoff will cumulatively increase due to the introduction of impervious surfaces. A Hydrology Report specifically addressing the development of the Mercedes Benz auto dealership shall be completed as part of the Supplemental EIR for the project. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 14 8.a. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated: The project proposes the development of a car dealership. This type of development typically generates domestic and/or municipal wastewater that does not require pretreatment or waste discharge requirements. No water quality standards are forecasted to be violated by implementing the proposed project which will deliver its wastewater flows to the regional wastewater plan. A Hydrology Report will be required to research this issue further. During construction and occupancy, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be implemented which will control storm water runoff pollution to a level of no significance. 8.b. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Significant Impact: Groundwater related problems are not expected to be encountered during site development. The proposed project does not include any extraction of groundwater, so no adverse direct impact can result from implementing the proposed project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 8.c. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated: Through the implementation of the project SWPPP, erosion and siltation issues are controlled to a less than significant impact and this project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. A Hydrology Report that specifically addresses this project shall be completed to review compliance with the SWPP. 8.d.-f. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated: The future project would increase runoff as a result of increasing the impervious surface on the project site. The Harveston EIR mitigation measures and City requirements impose mitigations to detain surface water runoff on the property to ensure that the maximum runoff volume from the site is not significantly increased. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements established by the State of California. However, the project is required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate Storm- Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Hydrology Report specifically addressing the proposed project is required to be completed within the updated Harveston Supplemental EIR. 8.g.h. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Significant Impact: No future buildings or structures will be located within the 100-year floodplain according to the City's General Plan as a result of implementing this project. No significant Flood hazards are expected to occur from developing the project site as proposed. 8.i. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: Less than Significant Impact: The future project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The subject property is not located within a dam inundation area per the City's General Plan. In addition, the City has implemented amulti-hazard functional plan pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act. The proposed project does not contain critical or essential facilities (at this time). 8.j. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR: No Impact: Due to the project area's distance from the ocean and higher elevation, there is no potential for an tsunami. The project area is not located near a large surface water body and there is no potential for inundation by seiche or mudflow due to the topography of the site. G:\Planning\20071PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 15 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significeni Mitga[ion Significant No Issues and Su ortin Information Sources Im act Into rated Im act Im act a. Ph sicall divide an established communit ? / b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or / regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or / natural community conservation plan? Comments: The general impacts to land use and planning of the Harveston Specific Plan, of which the proposed project is a component, are forecast on pages 5-3 to 5-24 of the Harveston EIR. The EIR concluded that development of the Specific Plan in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to the cumulative impact of development in the area. The future development of the auto dealership is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, City Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance and City-wide Design Guidelines. No significant cumulative land use consistency impacts are anticipated as a result of the project site. The EIR determined that no significant impacts have been identified; therefore no mitigation measures are necessary. 9.a.b. Impacts remain the same or less than as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less than Significant Impact: The future proposed development and amendment to the development agreement would not conflict with the General Plan designation, Zoning Ordinance, or Harveston Specific Plan. The proposed project would comply with all applicable rules and regulations. The proposed development would not physically divide an established community. 9.c. Impacts remain the same or less than as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less than Significant Impact: The Harveston EIR already researched, analyzed, and provided mitigations for habitat conservation. No jurisdictional drainage features or riparian/riverine habitat occur inside the project site. No vernal pools or fairy shrimp habitat were observed on the project site. Please refer to the Biological Section for a full discussion of this item and details of the mitigation measures required. G:\Planning\200TPA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc ~ 6 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitgation Significant No Issues and Su ortin Information Sources Im act In rated Im act Im act a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral / resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important / mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local eneral Ian, s ecific Ian or other land use Ian? 10.a.b. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No lmpact: According to the California Geological Survey, no known mineral resources exist in the City of Temecula. Future development pursuant to the City's General Plan will not result in the loss of known mineral resources. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 17 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Tnan Significant Mitigation Signifcant No Issues and Su rtin Information Sources Im act Inco orated Im act Im act a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in / excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other a encies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive / roundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels / in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro'ect? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient / noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro'ect? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, / where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would / the project expose people residing or working in the ro'ect area to excessive noise levels? Comments: The general impacts related to noise issues from development of the project site as part of implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan are forecasted on pages 5-104 through 5-120 of the Harveston EIR. The analysis of the Specific Plan, including development of the subject property, concluded that the high future traffic noise environment in the vicinity of the project is almost exclusively due to cumulative growth. The impact would occur with or without the future proposed project. If the impact would occur without the project implementation, and if the project contribution is de minimis, the cumulative impact is also considered less than significant. Mitigation measures were identified to address long-term project noise impacts and standard conditions of approval for controlling construction noise. A Noise Assessment was prepared as part of the environmental analysis in the EIR, however an auto dealership was not specifically addressed in the Noise Assessment. Therefore, a Supplemental EIR addressing the impacts related to noise is recommended. 11.a.-d. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less than Significant Impact: Temporary construction noise impacts would increase noise levels in the area and is considered ashort-term impact to ambient noise levels. Noise generated by equipment can reach high episodic levels, but these episodes are of relatively short duration and typically restricted to daylight hours. In order to control construction noise levels to a level consistent with the City's General Plan Noise Element, the Harveston development is required to implement noise reduction measures as part of their Conditions of Approval for grading and building permits. The EIR also provides additional mitigation measures to address construction noise along with construction techniques to reduce interior and exterior noise impacts. Given the location of the proposed development (abutting a freeway and vacant land), the potential for significant ngise impacts on sensitive receptors is considered very low. No changes in conditions or the results of the analysis would occur as a result of developing the final phase of the Specific Plan as analyzed in the Harveston EIR. G:\Planning12007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 1$ 11.e.f. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The project is not within two miles of a public airport or private use airport. According to Figure 5.10-4 of the French Valley Future Noise Contours in the Noise Element of the General Plan, the project is not located in the noise impact area for the French Valley Airport. In addition, the project is not located in the French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone according to Figure 5.9-3 in the Land Use and Planning Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport and no impacts will result from this project. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 1 g 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Su rtin Infortnalion Sources Im aG Incor rated Im aG Im aG a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either / directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure ? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing ,housing, / necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ~ construction of re lacement housin elsewhere? Comments: 12.a. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is a development of an automobile dealership within the Harveston Specific Plan. The project will not provide housing or lead to a significant increase in population or housing. The project will attract people that live outside City limits, and may cause future employees to relocate to (or near to) Temecula, which is considered a moderate indirect affect. However, the project will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. 12.b.c. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is vacant property zoned for service commercial development. Therefore, the project will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing due to displacement of housing or people. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA1PIanning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 2l) 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Milgation Significant No Issues and Su mn Information Sources Im ct Inw rated Im act Im ad a. Fire rotection? / b. Police rotection? / c. Schools? / d. Parks? / e. Other public facilities? / Comments: The general impacts related to public services from development of the project site are forecasted on pages 5- 158 through 5-180 of the Harveston EIR. The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the proposed development of the project site concluded that the project would not result in significant adverse impacts to any public services. However, cumulative impacts would be significant. The EIR has identified mitigation measures to reduce the cumulative impacts to a level of less than significant. 13.a.b.d.e. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less than Significant Impact: The analysis of the EIR concluded that the Harveston development as a whole will create an increased demand for public services and utilities on a local and regional basis, but development of the property within the project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. Implementation of mitigation measures listed in the EIR will reduce each incremental cumulative impact on the associated public services and/or utilities to a level less than significant. 13.c. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The project itself is not creating a residential use and therefore will have no impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G:\Planning12007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA1PIanning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 21 14. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Signifcant Unless Lass Than Sgnifcant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Su rtin Information Sources Im act In rated Im acf Im act a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional / parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction / or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 14.a.b. Impacts remain the same or less than as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The future proposed project is a commercial development and does not include housing. Therefore, no demand for recreation would be generated from the commercial project and Development Agreement Amendment implementation. No demand for recreation facilities or parks would result from the implementation of the proposed project. G:\Planning12007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIRICE~A INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 22 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Sign cant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Su mn Information Sources Im act Inco aled Im ad Im ad a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in / relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or con estion at intersections ? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of / service standard established by the county congestion mana ement a enc for desi Hated roads or hi hwa s? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either / an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safet risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature / (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom atible uses e. ., farm a ui ment ? e. Result in inade uate emer enc access? / f. Result in inade uate arkin ca acit ? / g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs / supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bic cle racks ? Comments: The general impacts related to transportation/traffic issues from development of the project site as part of implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan are forecasted on pages 5-35 through 5-87 of the Harveston EIR. Extensive mitigation measures were identified to reduce circulation impacts. The analysis concluded that with the mitigation measures incorporated, no potentially significant impacts would occur to the circulation system as a result of the Specific Plan implementation. However, cumulative impacts to circulation would be potentially significant. 15.a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The City of Temecula has identified the minimum level of service (LOS) as 'D' or better for City intersections not adjacent to the interstate freeways and LOS 'E' for intersections and ramps adjacent to freeways. As described above, the project will generate traffic. However, the traffic generated by the development of the Specific Plan was anticipated by the Harveston EIR and mitigation measures were included to reduce traffic impacts to less than significant levels. The Harveston EIR also identified potentially significant cumulative impacts to the City circulation system due to potential growth in that area that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, the Harveston EIR did not specifically analyze the potential development of an auto dealership, nor was a traffic analysis prepared for an auto dealership. Therefore, a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to address the potential traffic issues created by the proposed Mercedes Benz dealership. 15.b. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: New road improvements were proposed and constructed as part of the earlier phases of the Harveston Specific Plan. Any design proposed for road improvements or parking facilities will meet the City's design standards. Based on the approved Specific Plan and EIR the proposed project is not forecast to pose significant hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicles. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 23 15.c. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The project site is located approximately seven miles from the nearest airport, (French Valley), and therefore project implementation has no potential to adversely impact any air traffic patterns. 15.d. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The proposed circulation system improvements associated with the project will be installed in conformance with the City's circulation system and Harveston Specific Plan requirements. Implementation of the required measures will ensure that no residual traffic hazards result form the construction of the roadways in conjunction with the proposed project. 15.e. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The Fire and Public Works Departments will review all proposed projects and determine that there is adequate internal emergency vehicle access. The future proposed development will have no effect on emergency access to adjacent parcels after development. 15.f. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The future project will be developed to be consistent with the parking requirements of the City's Development Code. No adverse parking capacity impacts are forecasted to occur. 15.g. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: Mass Transit within the City of Temecula is provided by the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). The future project will be required to be designed consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting this alternative transportation. No conflict or adverse impact to adopted alternative transportation policies, plans or programs is forecast to occur from implementing the proposed project. No impacts are anticipated. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 2Q 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Signifcanl Mitigation Significant No Issues and Su nin Information Sources Im act Into aled Im act Im act a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the / a licable Re final Water Qualit Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or / wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water / drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the / project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ex anded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment / provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to / accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and / re ulations related to solid waste? Comments: The general impacts related to utilities from development of the project as part of the implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan are forecast on pages 5-158 through 5-180 of the certified Final EIR. The analysis of the EIR concluded that no significant adverse impacts would affect any utilities. However, cumulative impacts would remain significant. Standard conditions and a few mitigation measures were identified to address project specific potential adverse impacts that were identified in the analysis of the original EIR. The future proposed project may adversely impact utilities in one of two ways: first, during construction existing utility lines may be affected by construction and the lines relocated, either within the existing alignment or along another alignment; and second, over the long term the project would utilize a particular utility service, such as water, electric, and sewer utilities. 16.a. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: The proposed project will deliver wastewater to the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant in Temecula. Through the payment of annexation fees and sewer connection fees, the impact of implementing the proposed project on sewage systems is forecast to have no impact. 16.b. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: Through the payment of water district fees, sewer connection fees, and meter installation fees, the impact of implementing the proposed project in sewage systems is forecasted to be less than significant. Adequate capacity exists in each system for this project to be implemented without causing adverse impacts. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 25 16.c. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project would increase runoff as a result of increasing the impervious surface on the project site. The City imposes standard conditions of approval to detain surface runoff on the property to ensure that the maximum runoff volume from the site is not significantly increased. In addition, the proposed auto dealership is adjacent to a creek within the City of Murrieta boundaries, where controlling off-site runoff is even more imperative. Therefore, it is recommended that a Supplemental EIR be prepared to address the potential increase of runoff. 16.d. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less than Signit:.cant lmpacf: Adequate water supplies have been identified by the Rancho California Water District to meet the current and immediate future demands in its service area, including the proposed project. 16.e. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less than Significant Impact: Adequate wastewater treatment capacity has been identified by the EMWD to meet the current and immediate future demands in its service area, including the proposed project. 16.f. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: According to the General Plan and the County Solid Waste Management Plan adequate landfill disposal capacity exists within the regional landfills to meet current and future demands. Solid waste mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR must be implemented by all projects in the City to meet the City's source reduction requirements. 16.g. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. No Impact: By participating in the City's source reduction and recycling program, the proposed project will comply with all statues and regulations for management of solid waste. The proposed commercial project does not pose any significant or unique management requirements, therefore, there are no impacts. G \Planning\2007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 26 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Sgnificant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Su rgn Information Sources Im as Into rated Im act Im as a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality / of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histo or rehisto ? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually / limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current ro'ects, and the effects of robable future ro~ects ? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will / cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direct) or indirect) ? Comments: The project proposes a Mercedes Benz automotive dealership. The project is part of the Harveston Specific Plan and the use is permitted under the Specific Plan regulations. The construction and operation of this proposed project has been evaluated as having no potentially significant effects that are significantly greater that those analyzed in the EIR and that would not be reduced to less than significant level with mitigation incorporated from the Specific Plan EIR. In addition, changes in circumstances for issues such as biological resources (MSHCP), water quality (SWPP and WQMP), noise, and air quality will be re-evaluated in a Supplemental EIR. 17.a. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less than Significant Impact: Potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project have been identified in the areas of biological and cultural resources for the Specific Plan in the Specific Plan EIR. However, based on technical studies for these issues, all were reduced to a less than significant impact level by implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Harveston EIR. 17.b.c. Impacts remain the same as characterized in the Harveston EIR. Less than Signiffcant Impact: Potentially significant long-term and cumulative impacts of the proposed project as part of the Specific Plan were analyzed in the EIR. Because the proposed development was anticipated in the City's General Plan EIR and Harveston EIR, no further analysis of cumulative issues is required and the findings in the Initial Study are consistent with the findings in the Harveston EIR. The proposed project would have impacts that remain relatively the same as those evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR. The project complies with existing land use designations and zoning standards. With the identified mitigation required as part of the EIR, the project is not forecast to cause any significant adverse environmental impacts to any of the environmental issues addressed in this Initial Study or EIR. The project does not anticipate environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, therefore less than significant impacts are anticipated. G:\Planning12007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\PlanninglElR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 27 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earliet anal ses used. Identi earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b mill ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 18. a.b. A previous CEQA analysis of the site for the proposed project includes the EIR for the Harveston Specific Plan (November 2000) for the purpose of developing the Harveston Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan with the exception of potential issues regarding aesthetics, air quality, noise, biology, traffic, and lighting which will be addressed within a Supplemental EIR. 18.c. See Harveston EIR for list of mitigation measures. The Supplemental EIR will address Mitigation Measures specific to the proposed car dealership. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 3. Harveston Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Harveston Final Environmental Impact Report G:\Planning12007\PA07-0335 Mercedes Benz of Temecula CDPA\Planning\EIR\CEQA INITIAL STUDY - revised.doc 28 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING R:V+genda Manager SIREWIanning Commission Ifems\0709081Mercedes BenzWOPH.doc Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: Planning Application No. PA07-0335 Applicant: Garth Blumenthal representing Fletcher Jones Motorcars Location: North west corner of Ynez Road and Waverly Lane within the Harveston Specific Plan Proposal: A Development Plan for a proposed Mercedes Benz auto dealership approximately 80,000 square feet with associated service area and car wash Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project will include the certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations Case Planner: Christine Damko, Associate Planner Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Date of Hearing: July 9, 2008 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA07-0335 Project Description: A Development Plan for atwo- story approximately 80,000 square foot Mercedes Benz dealership located on the north west corner of Ynez Road and Waverly Lane within the Harveston Specific Plan Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 916-400-002 Per Development Agreement Per Development Agreement Per Development Agreement July 9, 2008 July 9, 2010 Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project PL-1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($2,670.75) which includes the Two Thousand Six Hundred-Six Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($2,606.75) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty-Four Dollar ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developerhss not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). PL-2. The applicant shall review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an original signature to the Planning Department. General Requirements PL-3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages