Loading...
11-195 Resolution No. 11 - 195 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2009091022) AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN. WHEREAS, in June 2009 the applicant, Stark Menifee Land, LLC, filed formal applications with the City of Menifee (the "City")for Amendment No. 2 to the Pueblo Del Sol Specific Plan No. 194 to establish the Town Center Specific Plan Project (the "Project" or "project"); and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2009, the City of Menifee circulated a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an environmental impact report("EIR")for the Project to the State Clearinghouse, responsible and trustee agencies and persons for a 30-day review period; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2009, the City noticed and held a public scoping hearing on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, from March 20, 2010 to July 6, 2010, the City circulated the Draft EIR for public review to the State Clearinghouse (State Clearinghouse#2009091022), responsible and trustee agencies and persons for a 45-day review period; and WHEREAS, several comment letters were submitted on the Draft EIR to the City during the public review period; and WHEREAS, based on the City's review of comments on the Draft EIR, the City determined that revisions to the Draft EIR were necessary; and WHEREAS, from August 25, 2010 to October 11, 2010, the City circulated a Recirculated Draft EIR for public review to the State Clearinghouse, responsible and trustee agencies and persons for a 45-day review period; and WHEREAS, five comments were received during the public review period; and WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments, which are included with corrections and additions to the Recirculated Draft EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan ("MMP") in the Final EIR for the Project(the "Final EIR"); and WHEREAS, written responses to comments were submitted to public agencies on November 10, 2010, and the Final EIR was published and made available to the public for review at the City's Department of Community Development on December 4, 2010. WHEREAS, after publication of the Final EIR, the City prepared an Errata to document certain typographical errors in the Recirculated Draft EIR(the "Errata"); and WHEREAS, the Final EIR, together with the Recirculated Draft EIR and Errata, constitutes the "Final EIR"; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified and discussed several air quality, noise, traffic and utilities impacts, which may occur as a result of the Project, and which require mitigation, but 1 cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant and are thereby significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Consideration of Environmental Impact is required to, be adopted prior to approval by the City, and which impacts are as follows: (a) Air Quality (Construction) - Project-specific construction period emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") regional significance threshold for NO,,and localized significance threshold for NO2. Mitigation would ensure that no individual development within the Project would have a project-specific impact. However, because construction of more than one development could occur under the Specific Plan at a given time, it is possible that cumulative NOx and NO2 emissions could exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds for those emissions and impacts related to estimated peak regional and localized construction NOx and NO2 emissions would be significant and unavoidable. (b) Air Quality(Operational)-The Project would generate an increase in average daily local emissions that would exceed thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD for PM10 and PM2.5. Air quality impacts during operation of the Project would result primarily from motor vehicles entering and leaving the Project site, and emissions from the motor vehicles would remain above the thresholds and would be significant and unavoidable on a Project-level and cumulative basis. (c) Noise (Operational)- Both project-level and cumulative operational traffic-related noise impacts at three roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable as there is no feasible mitigation to reduce traffic associated with the Project. The affected segments are: 1) La Piedra Road west of Sherman Road; 2) La Piedra Road between Sherman Road and Haun Road; and 3) Sherman Road South of La Piedra Road. (d) Traffic-At the intersections listed below, Project-related traffic would contribute to exceedances of thresholds that would occur without the Project. The EIR identifies Project-specific improvements that would be implemented and other regional improvements that would also be required. Because the funding and implementation of some of the recommended regional improvements is uncertain, Project impacts are considered significant and unavoidable at the following intersections: Opening Year(2013) a. Bradley Road/Potomac Drive b. 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Newport Road c. 1-215 Southbound Ramps/Newport Road d. 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Scott Road e. SR-79/Domenigoni Parkway Cumulative (2013) a. Murrieta Road/Newport Road 2 b. 1-215 Southbound Ramps/McCall Boulevard c. 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Newport Road d. 1-215 Southbound Ramps/Newport Road e. 1-215 Southbound Ramps/Scott Road f. 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Scott Road g. Bradley Road/Cherry Hills Boulevard h. Bradley Road/Desert Hills Road L Bradley Road/Potomac Drive j. Bradley Road/Newport Road k. Haun Road/Newport Road I. Menifee Road/Newport Road m. SR-79/Domenigoni Parkway (e) Utilities (Solid Waste)- Cumulative growth in the service area of local solid waste services could result in the need for additional landfill capacity. Although Project impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant, the Project's contribution to landfill capacity impacts would be considerable, and cumulative impacts related to landfill capacity would be significant and unavoidable; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identified all other potential environmental impacts as either not an impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation, and a MMP has been prepared for those potential impacts requiring mitigation, which is part of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, other reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Project and substantially reduce or avoid significant impacts of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project, as discussed further below; and WHEREAS, the EIR was prepared for the Project in accordance with Sections 21000 through 21177 of the California Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act ["CEQA"])and Sections 15000 through 15387 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"); and WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA and the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the City; and WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Recirculated Draft EIR which would require recirculation; and 3 WHEREAS, on December 14, 2010 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC10-058 recommending to the City Council that it certify the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2009091022) and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations of Environmental Impact for the Town Center Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 4, 2011, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which the City Council considered the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2009091022) and Statement of Overriding Considerations of Environmental Impact for the Town Center Specific Plan; and those persons desiring to be heard on said matters were heard and evidence in said matters received. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby resolves the following: 1. The Findings set out above and as contained in Exhibit "A" are true and correct. 2. The applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines have been duly observed in conjunction with said hearing in the consideration of this matter and all of the previous proceedings related thereto. 3. The City Council (i) certifies the EIR; (ii) adopts of all environmental findings as contained in the Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, and hereby makes and adopts the findings with respect to each thereof and declares that it considered the evidence described in connection with each such finding; (iii) adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as contained in the Exhibit "B" to this Resolution and finds that the impacts of the project which remain significant and unavoidable are outweighed by the project's overriding benefits, and (iv) adopts the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program as contained in the Exhibit "C" to this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this/1$th day�ewe nuary, 2 1. / .� ee' \ Wallace W. Edgarton, Mayor ATTEST: Kathy Bennett, City Clerk Approved as to form: Thomas P. Clark Jr., Special Counsel Exhibit "A": Findings Exhibit"B": Statement of Overriding Consideration Exhibit"C": Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 f EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS 1. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION The City of Menifee, through the City Council ("City"), is the lead agency for the Town Center Specific Plan Project, as defined in Section 15376 of the CEQA Guidelines, and is "the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." All of the actions listed below are referred to collectively as the "Project Approvals." The Project Approvals encompass the approvals for the Project for purposes of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines section 15378 and these determinations of the City. The following approvals apply to the Project: 1. Adopt a resolution to certify the Final EIR and adopt the MMP for the Project; 2. Adopt an ordinance amending the Riverside County General Plan to establish a new General Plan land use classification of"Mixed Use"that would be applied to the entire Project area; 3. Adopt an ordinance amending the Countryside Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 194)to establish the Town Center Specific Plan for the Project area; 4. Adopt an ordinance approving the Development Agreement by and among the landowners and the City for the Town Center Specific Plan Area. These Findings, along with the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 5.E below, and the MMP set forth on Exhibit"C," are made with respect to the Project Approvals for the Project and state the Findings of the Planning Commission relating to the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals. The following Findings, along with the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMP are hereby adopted by the Planning Commission as required under CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 through 15093, for the Project: As stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15091: (a) no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each Findings. The possible Findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR[hereinafter, "Finding 1 EXHIBIT "A"-I f 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency[hereinafter, "Finding 2"]. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR[hereinafter, "Finding 3"]. (b) The required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Project Background The original Specific Plan for the Town Center Project area, the Pueblo Del Sol Specific Plan No. 194, was adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on November 5, 1985. The Countryside Specific Plan (Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan No. 194)was developed in response to increased market demand for single-family, detached housing, and was approved by the County of Riverside in October of 1990. The Countryside Specific Plan included all of the property that is part of the Town Center Specific Plan, plus additional retail property on the east side of Haun Road (Countryside Marketplace). The Countryside Specific Plan allowed for a maximum of 1,154 units, with an overall density of 6.4 dwelling units per acre, and incorporated 68 acres of Community Commercial uses, specifically set aside for the Countryside Marketplace project, and a 15-acre elementary school. The Project would serve as amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan No. 194. Since the Countryside Marketplace has already been built out under the provisions of the existing Countryside Specific Plan (Amendment No. 1), it is not included in the Project boundaries for the Town Center Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment has revised the boundaries of the Specific Plan to incorporate only properties west of Haun Road. Therefore, it is recommended that the provisions currently identified in the Countryside Specific Plan (Amendment No. 1),remain in effect for the Countryside Marketplace until the City of Menifee establishes its own zoning map and development standards for the area. The development standards in the Town Center Specific Plan would allow flexibility among land uses to allow the Project to respond to changing market conditions over time. Project Objectives The Final EIR identifies the following eleven Project objectives: • Set forth a comprehensive development plan that achieves the City's development goals for this portion of Menifee; EXHIBIT "A"-2 • Provide a balance of compatible and complementary residential, commercial, and recreational land uses in a well-designed master-planned community; • Establish land uses, circulation, development standards, and design guidelines that enhance the character and visual appearance of the neighborhood; • Provide for flexibility in land use regulations to accommodate unique opportunities that arise in the future as a result of changing market conditions; • Reduce vehicular trips and reliance upon the automobile by providing a mix of amenities nearby; • Provide a community design that establishes unique residential villages with housing options for diverse ages and income levels; • Provide recreational facilities and amenities to meet the needs of the community by incorporating a public park, neighborhood open spaces, and a trail system; • Contribute to the range of existing housing choices in Menifee by providing both attached and detached housing options in one master-planned community; • Create an aesthetically pleasing and distinct community identity through the establishment of design criteria for landscaping, walls, street improvements, signs, entry monuments, and other planning and design features; • Create a sense of internal community connectivity and enhance the relationship of buildings to the street within the Specific Plan area; and • Create a strong sense of arrival into the Project. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project analyzed in the Final EIR is fully described in Section 2 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. The Project consists of the activities approved by action of the City in certifying the Final EIR, adopting the Town Center Specific Plan, and approving the Development Agreement. . The Town Center Specific Plan Project includes development of a master planned community comprised of complementary commercial, recreational, civic, residential, and educational land uses. The focal point of the community would be a 98-acre Mixed Use Town Center(north of La Piedra Road)that would include a public park. The Project includes a primary land use alternative and two alternative development plans to illustrate alternative land use mixes and configurations that could also be accommodated by the Project. The primary land use alternative could result in development of up to approximately 558,657 square feet of retail, office, and hotel uses and would also incorporate a series of residential villages that would accommodate up to 1,052 residential units. Approximately 728 units are in areas designated as Mixed Use and approximately 324 units are in areas designated as residential. The Development Agreement contemplates that the Developer may also build certain recreational facilities within the Paloma Wash Channel, adjacent to the Project Site, on behalf of the City, as contemplated in the previously-certified EXHIBIT "A"-3 f Countryside Market Place Shopping Center Project Environmental Impact Report. The Project also includes a 15-foot wide multipurpose trail and a 5-acre public park within the mixed-use Town Center and an 11.9 acre-site for a potential future school, as well as various neighborhood parks. As a result of the environmental review of the Draft EIR that was prepared for the Town Center Specific Plan, and in consideration of comments and recommendations received, and staff recommendations in response to public comments received on the Draft EIR, several changes were incorporated into the draft of the Town Center Specific Plan discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR. These modifications to the Town Center Specific Plan are shown in the Introduction to the Recirculated Draft EIR. In addition, several clarifications and additions were made to the Recirculated Draft EIR and are shown in Section III of the Final EIR entitled "Corrections and Additions" and in the Errata that is attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit As previously noted, all of these modifications are incorporated into these Findings by reference. The City's decision to modify the Town Center Specific Plan in response to comments received is consistent with the basic purposes of CEQA, which is intended to "[p]revent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measure when the governmental agency finds the change to be feasible." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(3))The City's adoption of modifications to the Project is an example of the CEQA process working as the Legislature intended it. The changes to the Project do not trigger the need to recirculate the EIR for additional comment and consultation. (See Public Resources Code, section 21092.1, CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993)6 Cal.4th 1112.) Recirculation is required where changes are made in the project that deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect(including a feasible project alternative), including changes indicating the following: • New Significant Impact—A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; • Substantially Increased Unmitigated Impact—A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; or • Considerably Different Alternative or Mitigation—A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5, subd. (b).) None of the changes in the Town Center Specific Plan would indicate: (1)that a new significant impact would result; (2)that a substantial increase in the severity of an impact would result, necessitating mitigation; nor(3)that a considerably different alternative or mitigation measure would clearly lessen project impacts. EXHIBIT "A"-4 The City finds that none of the changes made to the text of the Recirculated Draft EIR, as set forth in Final EIR section III "Corrections and Additions" and in the Errata rise to the level of"significant" information requiring recirculation of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Accordingly, none of the changes constitutes significant new information as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, and recirculation is not required. 4. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the City's decision on the Project consists of: a) matter of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to, federal, state and local laws and regulations; and b)the following documents which are in custody of the City: • The September 24, 2009 NOP, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; • The Draft EIR for the Town Center Specific Plan together with appendices (May 2009) and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein; • The Recirculated Draft EIR for the Town Center Specific Plan together with appendices (August 2010), Errata, and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein; • The Final EIR for the Town Center Specific Plan (October 2010) and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein, including comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR and responses to those comments; • All comments and documents submitted to the City by agencies or members of the public(before, during and after the close of the public comment period on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR up through the close of the public testimony portion of the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Project) in connection with the Project; • The Draft Town Center Specific Plan (October 2009) as revised (May 19, 2010, July 30, 2010 and November 11, 2010); • The Draft Development Agreement; • The Countryside Market Place Shopping Center Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Draft and Final, all appendices, and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred therein; • The Cooperative Agreement by and between the Riverside Flood Control District, the City of Menifee, the Developer, and Donahue Shriber Realty Group, L.P. dated October 27, 2009; • The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; • The MMP for the Project (Exhibit "C"); EXHIBIT "A"-5 • All Findings and resolutions adopted by City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; • All reports, studies, memoranda, staff reports, maps, exhibits, illustrations, diagrams or other planning materials relating to the Project prepared by the City or by consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies and submitted to the City with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City's actions on the Project; • Any minutes or verbatim transcripts of all information and study sessions, workshops, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings; and • Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is the Community Development Department for the City, 29714 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586. The custodian of the documents is the Department head or his/her designee. The City relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project, even if not every document was formally presented to the City or City staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the City was aware in approving the Project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration(1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to County staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City's decisions relating to the adoption of the Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. V. County of Stanislaus(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT In making these Findings and the determination regarding the Project Approvals, the City recognizes that the Town Center Specific Plan implicates a number of controversial environmental issues and that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to those issues. The City has acquired an understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the Draft EIR, the Recirculated Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, and the responses to the comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR in the Final EIR, as well as testimony, letters and reports regarding the Final EIR and the merits of the Project. The Final EIR, dated October 2010, together with the Recirculated Draft EIR and Errata, constitutes the "Final EIR." The City has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the Draft EIR and the EXHIBIT "A"-6 Recirculated Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the Draft EIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the Final EIR, the information submitted on the Final EIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the Final EIR, the City's planning consultants, and by staff, addressing these comments. In particular, the City has considered the Alternatives presented in the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, as well as the comments submitted by various commenters and the responses of the Final EIR preparers and staff to those comments. The City has gained a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the environmental issues presented by the Town Center Specific Plan. In turn, the understanding has enabled the City to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. The City accordingly certifies that its Findings are based on a full appraisal of all of the evidence contained in the Final EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the Final EIR. These Findings constitute the City's best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. These Findings are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that come into effect with the City's approval of the Project. The City is adopting these Findings for the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the Final EIR. Although the Findings below identify specific pages and sections within the Recirculated Draft and Final EIR in support of various conclusions reached below, the City incorporates by reference and adopts as its own, the reasoning set forth in both environmental documents, and thus relies on that reasoning, even where not specifically mentioned or cited below, in reaching the conclusions set forth below, except where additional evidence is specifically mentioned. This is especially true with respect to the City's approval of all mitigation measures, policies, and implementation programs recommended in the Final EIR, and the reasoning set forth in responses to comments in the Final EIR. As noted, the Final EIR is incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. In the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted below, such a mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the Findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language describing a mitigation measure set forth in Section 7 fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measures in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the policies and implementation measures as set forth in the Final EIR shall control, unless the language of the policies and implementation measures has been specifically and expressly modified by these Findings. These Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City regarding the environmental impacts of the Project and the mitigation measures included as part of the Final EIR and adopted by the City as part of the Project. To avoid duplication and redundancy, and because the City agrees with, and hereby adopts, the conclusions in the Final EIR, these Findings will not always repeat the analysis and conclusions in the Final EIR, but instead incorporates them by reference herein and relied upon them as substantial evidence supporting these Findings. In making these Findings, the City has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public. The City finds that the determination of significance thresholds is a EXHIBIT "A"-7 f judgment decision within the discretion of the City; the significance thresholds used in the Final EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion of the Final EIR preparers and City staff; and the significance thresholds used in the Final EIR provide reasonable and appropriate means of assessing the significance of the adverse environmental effects of the Project. Thus, although, as a legal matter, the City is not bound by the significance determinations in the Final EIR (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (e)), the City finds them persuasive and hereby adopts them as its own. The City finds that the recreational improvements contemplated by the Development Agreement with respect to the adjacent Paloma Wash implement the Cooperative Agreement by and between by and between the Riverside Flood Control District, the City of Menifee, the Developer, and Donahue Shriber Realty Group, L.P. dated October 27, 2009 and was previously analyzed in the Countryside Marketplace Shopping Center Project EIR (see e.g., Figure 3.5-4 on page 3-14 of the Draft Supplemental EIR). Section 5 of these Findings summarizes the environmental determinations of the Final EIR and Project impacts before and after mitigation. Section 5 does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, Section 5 provides a summary description of each impact, sets forth the mitigation measures identified to reduce or avoid the impact, and states the City's Findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted Town Center Specific Plan's provisions and the recommended mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental Findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and these Findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR's determination regarding the Project's impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates in these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings. A. Findings with Respect to Impacts Declared To Be Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required) The City agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to all impacts identified as "less than significant" and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant or present no impact as so described in the Final EIR. Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3); 15091.)This finding applies to the following impacts: Agricultural and Forest Resources (Section IV.A.1) • Impact: Conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland. or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to Non-Agricultural Use • Impact: Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use, or a Williamson Act Contract EXHIBIT "A"-8 • Impact: Conflict with Existing Zoning for, or Cause Rezoning of Forest Land Timberland or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production • Impact: Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use Aesthetics (Section IV.B) • Impact: Impacts on a Scenic Vista or Substantial Damage to Scenic Resources • Impact: Degradation of Plan Area Visual Character • Impact: New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Adversely Affecting Day or Nighttime Views Air Quality (Section IV.C) • Impact: Conflict or Obstruction of Implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan • Impact: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Biological Resources (Section IV.D) • Impact: Impacts on Riparian or Other Sensitive Natural Communities • Impact: Interference with the Movement of Any Native Resident of Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors, or Impede the Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites • Impact: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Cultural Resources (Section IV.A.2) • Impact: Changes in the Significance of Historical Resources Geology and Soils (Section IV.A.3) • Impact: Risks Related to a Known Earthquake Fault • Impact: Risks Related to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking • Impact: Risk Related to Seismic-Related Ground Failure Including Liquefaction • Impact: Risks Related to Landslides • Impact: Soil Erosion or the Loss of Topsoil EXHIBIT "A"-9 • Impact: Risks Related to On- or Off-Site Landslide Lateral Spreading Subsidence, Liquefaction or Collapse • Impact: Risks Related to Expansive Soil • Impact: Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting Use of Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section IV.E) • Impact: Inconsistency with AB 32 Guidance Documents Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section IV.A.4) • Impact: Hazards Related to Routine TransportUse or Disposal of Hazardous Materials • Impact: Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment • Impact: Hazardous Emissions or Handling of Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances or Waste within One-Quarter Mile of Existing or Proposed School • Impact: Location on a Listed Hazardous Materials Site • Impact: Location within an Airport Land Use Plan or within Two Miles of a Public Airport • Impact: Location within Vicinity of a Private Airstrip • Impact: Interference with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan • Impact: Risks Related to Wildland Fires Hydrology and Water Quality (Section IV.F) • Impact: Substantial Adverse Effect Related to Flood Hazards • Impact: Substantial Adverse Effect Related to Groundwater Land Use and Planning (Section IV.G) • Impact: Division of Established Communities • Impact: Consistency With Applicable Land Use Plans Policies and Regulations • Impact: Consistency with Any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan EXHIBIT "A"-10 Mineral Resources (Section IV.A.5) • Impact: Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource • Impact: Loss of Availability of a Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan or Other Land Use Plan Noise (Section IV.H Noise) • Impact: Construction-Period Noise • Impact: Construction-Period Ground-Borne Vibration Population and Housing (Section IV.A.6) • Impact: Induce Substantial Population Growth in the Area Public Services (Section IV.A.7) • Impact: Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or Physically Altered Government Facilities including Fire Protection Police Protection, Schools, Parks, or Other Public Facilities Recreation (Section IV.A.8) • Impact: Increase the Use of Existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks or Other Recreational Facilities Resulting in or Accelerating Substantial Physical Deterioration • Impact: Require Recreational Facilities or Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities Transportation and Traffic (Section IV.I) • Impact: Conflict with Applicable Plan, Ordinance or Policy Establishing a Measure of Effectiveness for the Performance of Circulation System Taking into Accownt All Modes of Transportation • Impact: Change in Air Traffic Patterns • Impact: Increases to Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses or Inadequate Emergency Access • Impact: Conflict with Adopted Policies Plans or Programs Regarding Public Transit, Bikeways and Pedestrian Facilities and Substantial Impacts to Performance or Safety of Such Facilities Utilities (Section IV.J) EXHIBIT "A"-11 f • Impact: Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board • Impact: New Stormwater Drainage Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities • Impact: Need for the Construction or Expansion of Wastewater Facilities and Capacity of Wastewater Treatment Provider to Accommodate the Project • Impact: Availability of Sufficient Water Supplies to Serve the Project • Impact: Availability of a Landfill to Accommodate Solid Waste During Construction and Operation • Impact: Compliance with Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations • Impact: Wasteful, Inefficient and Unnecessary Consumption of Electricity and Natural Gas B. Findinas with Respect to Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Implementation of Mitigation Measures ("Mitigation Measures" or"MM") (1) Overview. The Final EIR identified several significant environmental effects (or "impacts")that would result from the City's approval and implementation of the Town Center Specific Plan. Many significant effects were avoided altogether because the Town Center Specific Plan contains provisions that prevent the occurrence of significant effects in the first place. For other effects, additional mitigation is identified in the Final EIR. In some instances, the impacts have been reduced through the modifications to the Project. Some significant impacts of the Town Center Specific Plan, however, cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives; these effects are outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section 5.E. This Section 5.6 and Section 5.0 present in greater detail the City's Findings with respect to the potentially significant and significant environmental effects of the Town Center Specific Plan. The Final EIR identifies significant environmental impacts, listed below, which are associated with the Project and Mitigation Measures adopted to reduce these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. To the extent the Mitigation Measures would not mitigate or avoid all significant impacts, it is hereby determined that any remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Mitigation Measures identified below are presented in summary form. For a detailed description of impacts and Mitigation Measures, see the appropriate text in the Final EIR. Except as expressly otherwise stated in certain cases below, all Mitigation Measures in the Final EIR shall be implemented. (2) MMP. Except as expressly otherwise stated in certain cases below, the MMP will apply to all Mitigation Measures adopted with respect to the Project pursuant to all of the Project Approvals and will be implemented. EXHIBIT "A"-12 (3) Project Approvals Incorporate the Mitigation Measures and the MMP. The Mitigation Measures and the MMP, included here as Exhibit "C," have been incorporated into the Project Approvals and have thus become part of and limitations upon the entitlement conferred by the Project Approvals and are enforceable by the City. (4) Impacts Summarized. The descriptions of the impacts in these Findings are summary statements. Mitigation Measures are numbered to correspond to listings in the Recirculated Draft EIR and Final EIR. Reference should be made to the Recirculated Draft EIR and Final EIR for a more complete description. (5) Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Implementation, and Findings (a) Biological Resources (Section IV.D) Impact IV.D-1: Substantial Adverse Effect on Special Status Species. L Mitigation Measures. MM IV.D-1, MM IV.D-2, MM IV.D-3 ii. Implementation. The identified mitigation measures will be included in the MMP adopted for the Project and incorporated in the Town Center Specific Plan. iii. Findings. According to the Final EIR, two special-status species have potential to be impacted by the Project. The Project site is located within the Western Riverside County Municipal Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)Sun City/Menifee Area Plan, but the site is outside of a cell or cell group identified for conservation. However, the site is located within the following MSHCP-identified survey areas: (1) Burrowing Owl Survey Area and (2) Narrow Endemic Plan Species Survey Area No. 3. As explained in the Final EIR, spreading navarretia, a federally listed endangered plant species, was found on the Project site during surveys by the consulting biologist in 2006. In addition, burrowing owl, a CDFG Species of Concern, has potential to be present. Although not detected during focused surveys conducted by the consulting biologist in May 2006, suitable burrowing owl habitat is present on-site and this species could colonize the site prior to Project construction. As further explained in the Final EIR, spreading navarretia is a covered species by the MSHCP, and participating in the MSHCP, in the form of in-lieu fees as required by MM IV.D.1, would mitigate Project impacts to spreading navarretia to a less-than-significant level. As further explained in the Final EIR, due to the time that has elapsed, results of the 2006 surveys are outdated and would need to be repeated to confirm the presence or absence of burrowing owl prior to Project implementation. The Final EIR concludes that impacts to burrowing owl and nesting birds can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by MM IV.D-2 (Burrowing Owl Surveys) and MMIV.D-3 (Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys). Implementing these Mitigation Measures, as further described in the Final EIR, would reduce the impacts to a level that is less than significant. Based on the analysis contained within the Final EIR, other considerations in the record, and the standards of significance, the City finds that implementation of MM IV.D-1, MM IV.D-2 and MM IV.D-3 would ensure that impacts to special-status species would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. EXHIBIT "A"-13 For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 1. Impact IV.D-3: Impact on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. L Mitigation Measures. MM IV.D-4 ii. Implementation. The identified mitigation measures will be included in the MMP adopted for the Project and incorporated in the Town Center Specific Plan. iii. Findings. According to the Final EIR, one seasonal pool on the Project site, identified as Seasonal Pool 3, is subject to regulation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). There are no wetlands subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Game. Disturbance of Seasonal Pool 3 would require the Project to comply with WDRs from the RWQCB that establish minimum operation, maintenance and management standards to regulate the discharge of fill into waters of the State in order to assure compliance with state water quality standards. MM IV.D-4 requires that if the Project would impact Seasonal Pool 3, the Project shall comply with provisions of the WDR issued by RWQCB prior to disturbance. MM IV.D-4 also requires, at a minimum, compensation for impacts to Seasonal Pool 3 at a 1:1 acreage ratio. The Final EIR concludes that with implementation of MM IV.D-4, impacts to wetlands would be less-than-significant. Implementing this Mitigation Measure, as further described in the Final EIR, would reduce the impacts to a level that is less-than-significant. Based on the analysis contained within the Final EIR, other considerations in the record, and the standards of significance, the City finds that implementation of MM IV.D-4 would ensure that impacts related wetlands would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 1. (b) Hydrology/Water Quality (Section IVY) Impact IVY-1: Impacts to Site Drainage. L Mitigation Measures. MM IV.F-1, MM IV.F-2, MM IV.F-3, MM-IV.F-4 ii. Implementation. The identified mitigation measure will be included in the MMP adopted for the Project and incorporated in the Town Center Specific Plan. iii. Findings. As explained in the Final EIR, with full buildout of the Project, the percentage of impervious surface area on the site would be increased from 0 to 77 percent. As a result, peak runoff flow rates would be increased from 198.4 to 268.5 cubic feet per second ("cfs")during the 10-year storm and from 320.6 to 410.9 cfs during the 100-year storm. Although future buildout of the Project site under the Town Center Specific Plan would substantially alter existing drainage patterns on the site and would increase stormwater runoff volumes and rates from the site, such runoff would not exceed the planned capacity of the on-site or existing off-site EXHIBIT "A"-14 t drainage conveyance infrastructure, nor would it cause an increase in on- or off-site flooding. However, the potential for this future development to increase water erosion and siltation off-site or alter downstream stream channel characteristics exists due to the increased storm flows from the Project site following development. As explained in the Final EIR, Mitigation Measures MM IV.F-1, MM IVY-2, MM IVY-3, and MM IV.F-4 can mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. As explained further in the Final EIR, MMIV.F-1 requires that prior to issuance of a grading permit for any individual development under the Specific Plan, the Project Applicant shall ensure issuance of a LOMR from FEMA that demonstrates the Project site has been removed from Zone A on the FIRM panel that includes the Project site. MM IVY-2 requires the applicant for each applicable individual land use proposal submitted to the City under the Town Center Specific Plan to prepare and submit a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)to the City. Each WQMP shall be prepared consistent with the requirements contained in the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for the Santa Ana River Region or other requirements as established by the RWQCB (Santa Ana Region). Implementation responsibilities for the measures contained in each project-specific WQMP must be clearly detailed. MM IV.F-3 requires the project applicant for each applicable individual land use proposal submitted to the City of Menifee under the Town Center Specific Plan to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)designed to reduce construction- related stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable. Each SWPPP shall be prepared consistent with the requirements contained in the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit as well as any other or subsequent requirements as established by the SWRCB and/or RWQCB (Santa Ana Region). MM IVY-4 requires any future construction activity associated with future development under the Town Center Specific Plan that involves Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District right-of-way, easements, or facilities would require an encroachment permit from the District. The construction of facilities within road right- of-way that could impact District storm drains should also be coordinated with the District. In the event an encroachment permit is needed from the District, the project applicant must demonstrate that all construction-related activities within the District right-of-way are consistent with the MSHCP. The Final EIR concludes that implementation of these measures would reduce this potential effect to a less-than-significant level. Implementing these Mitigation Measures, as further described in the Final EIR, would reduce the impacts to a level that is less-than-significant. Based on the analysis contained within the Final EIR, other considerations in the record, and the standards of significance, the City finds that implementation of MM IVY-11, MM IVY-2, MM IVY-3 and MM IVY-4 would ensure that site drainage impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 1. (c) Noise (Section IV.H-1) Impact IV.H-1: Construction-Period Noise. i. Mitigation Measures. MM IV.H-1, MM IV.H-2, MM IV.H-3, MM IV.H-4, MM IV.H-5 ii. Implementation. The identified mitigation measures will be included in the MMP adopted for the Project and incorporated in the Town Center Specific Plan. EXHIBIT "A"-15 f iii. Findings. According to the Final EIR, construction of the Project would require the use of heavy equipment for demolition, site grading and excavation, the installation of utilities, paving, and building fabrication. Construction activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located to the west of Project site approximately 25 feet from the boundary of the Project site. The noise levels at these residences may reach a maximum of approximately 92 dBA LeQi with the use of mufflers during most construction activities for the Project. As explained in the Final EIR, MM IV.H-1, MM IV.H-2, MM IV.H-3, MM IV.H-4 and MM IV.H-5 can mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. As explained further in the Final EIR, MM IV.H-1 requires the City to ensure that construction activities are regulated to establish hours of operation in order to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts on surrounding areas, consistent with General Plan Policy N. 12.2. MM IV.H-2 requires the City to condition subdivision approval adjacent to developed/occupied noise-sensitive land uses by requiring the developer to submit a construction-related noise mitigation plan to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit, consistent with General Plan Policy N 12.1. MM IV.H-3 requires the City to require that all construction equipment utilizes noise reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds)that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer. MM IV.H-4 requires that whenever a construction site is within one-quarter(1/4) of a mile of an occupied residence or residences, no construction activities shall be undertaken between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May. Exceptions to these standards shall be allowed only with written consent of building official per the County's Noise Ordinance. MM IV.H-5 requires that during construction, best efforts shall be made to locate stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from existing residential dwellings. The Final EIR concludes that implementation of these requirement would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementing these Mitigation Measures, as further described in the Final EIR, would reduce the impacts to a level that is less-than-significant. Based on the analysis contained within the Final EIR, other considerations in the record and the standards of significance, the City finds that implementation of MM IV.H-1, MM IV.H-2, MM IV.H-3, MM IV.H-4 and MM IV.H-5 would ensure that construction-period impacts on water quality would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 1. Impact IV.H-1: Construction-Period Ground-Borne Vibration Levels i. Mitigation Measures. MM IV.H-6 ii. Implementation. The identified mitigation measures will be included in the MMP adopted for the Project and incorporated in the Town Center Specific Plan. EXHIBIT "A"-16 iii. Findings. According to the Final EIR, construction activities that would occur within the Project site would include grading and excavation that would have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Based on the information presented on Table IV.H-8, vibration levels could reach as high as approximately 0.089 peak particle velocity (PPV)within 25 feet of the Project site from the operation of a large bulldozer. Thus, the vibration levels at the existing off- site sensitive receptors to the Project site would exceed the County's 0.01 PPV threshold, and impacts would be potentially significant. As explained in the Final EIR, MM IV.H-6 can mitigate this impact to a less-than- significant level. As explained further in the Final EIR, MM IV.H-6 prohibits the operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be within 110 feet of the existing off-site single-family residences along the western boundary of the Project site during construction, to the extent feasible. Instead, small rubber-tired bulldozers shall be used within the 110-foot boundary during grading operations. All loading/unloading of export/import shall occur outside of the 110-foot boundary. Implementing this Mitigation Measure, as further described in the Final EIR, will reduce the impacts to a level that is less than significant. Based on the analysis contained within the Final EIR, other considerations in the record, and the standards of significance, the City finds that implementation of MM IV.H-6 would ensure that ongoing impacts on water quality would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 1. C. Findings with Respect to Impacts that Remain Sianificant After Implementation of Mitigation Measures (1) Air Quality(Section IV.C) Impact IV.0-2: Construction Period Air Quality Impacts. (i) Mitigation Measures, MM IV.C-1, MM IV.0-2, MM IV.0-3, MM IV.0-4, MM IV.0-5, MM IV.0-6, MM IV.0-7, MM IV.0-8, MM IV.0-9 (ii) Implementation. The identified mitigation measures will be included in the MMP adopted for the Project and incorporated in the Town Center Specific Plan. (iii) Findings. According to the Final EIR, site grading, preparation and excavation, construction and asphalt paving and architectural coating would occur over a 30-month period. As shown in Table IV.0-8 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, peak-day construction-related emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold for NO), during site grading, as 246.28 pounds per day of NO), could be emitted and the SCAQMD threshold for NO,, is 100 pounds per day. In addition, as shown in Table IV.0-9, localized construction concentrations of NO2 would result in maximum concentrations of NO2 that would exceed the significance threshold as recommended by SCAQMD. The Final EIR concluded that the impacts related to construction emissions of EXHIBIT "A"-17 NO,,and localized construction concentrations of NO2 would be potentially significant impacts. As explained in the Final EIR, MM IV-C-1, MM IV.0-2, MM IV.0-3, MM IV.0-4, MM IV.0-5, MM IV.0-6, MM IV.0-7 and MM IV.0-8 can mitigate Impact IV.0-2, but not to a level of less than significant. As described in the Final EIR, these Mitigation Measures require the following: MM IV.0-1 Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) MM IV.0-2 General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions; MM IV.0-3 Electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline- powered generators shall be used to the extent feasible; MM IV.0-4 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered; MM IV.0-5 Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (as instantaneous gusts)exceed 15 miles per hour, or when dust becomes a visible problem; MM IV.0-6 Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; MM IV.0-7 All construction equipment shall be properly maintained as per the manufactures recommendations; and MM IV.0-8 Trucks shall not idle at the site for more than five minutes. Signs shall be posed limiting idling to five minutes or less. MM IV.0-9 During the City's review process for applications under the Specific Plan, the applicant shall conduct or shall have conducted modeling of the regional NOx and the localized NO2 emissions associated with the maximum daily grading activities estimated for the proposed development. If the modeling shows that NOx and/or NO2 emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for those emissions, the maximum daily grading activities of the proposed development shall be limited to the extent that could occur without resulting in NOx and/or NO2 emissions in excess of SCAQMD's significance thresholds for those emissions. For implementing projects within the Specific Plan, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a project-level air quality assessment that includes the modeling of NOx and the localized NO2 emissions associated with daily grading activities anticipated for the proposed development. The Final EIR states that Mitigation Measures IV.0-1 through IV.0-8 would decrease construction emissions to a small degree. However, construction-related daily emissions would continue to exceed SCAQMD's regional significance threshold for NOx and localized significance threshold for NO2. Mitigation Measure IV.0-9 would ensure that no individual EXHIBIT "A"-18 development would have a project-specific impact. However, because construction of more than one development could occur under the Specific Plan at a given time, it is possible that cumulative NO,, and NO2 emissions could exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds for those emissions. Therefore, impacts related to estimated peak regional and localized construction NOX and NO2 emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the above-described Mitigation Measures would still not reduce Impact IV.0-2 to a less-than-significant level. No feasible additional mitigation is available to fully reduce this impact to construction-related regional emissions. For this reason, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The significant and unavoidable impacts are outweighed and overridden by the economic, social, and other benefits detailed in Section 5.E, below. For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 3. Impact IV.0-3: Operational Air Quality Impacts. (i) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures are available to further reduce this impact. (ii) Findings. As described in the Final EIR, the Project would generate emissions from stationary and mobile sources that would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As shown in Table IV.0-11, the Project would generate an increase in average daily local emissions that would exceed thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD for PM,o and PM2.5- Various Project design features would reduce the energy demand associated with the residential units and commercial buildings. For example, a series of pathways and trails will conveniently connect recreational, park and open space opportunities to retail, hotel and residential uses throughout the Project, reducing vehicle trips and increasing community vitality [Specific Plan 3-11. The proximity to a concentration of non-residential uses in the town center core and the built-in walkability of the community and connections to a broad range of home types within and outside of the Town Center Specific Plan help achieve the Specific Plan's Land Use Plan Objective to "reduce vehicular trips and reliance upon the automobile by providing a mix of amenities nearby." [Specific Plan 3-1, 3-3]. However, as'described in the Final EIR, air quality impacts during operation of the Project would result primarily from motor vehicles entering and leaving the Project site, and emissions from the motor vehicles would remain above the thresholds. Because it is difficult for the City or a developer to reduce emissions from such a source since most factors related to vehicle emissions (e.g. fuel efficiency and state emissions standards) are out of the City/developer's control, no feasible mitigation measures are available to further reduce this impact. [Recirculated Draft EIR IV.0-261 Therefore, air quality impacts during operation of the Project would be significant and unavoidable. The significant and unavoidable impacts are outweighed and overridden by the economic, social, and other benefits detailed in Section 5.E, below. For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 3. EXHIBIT "A"-19 Impact: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts (i) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures are available to further reduce this impact. (ii) Findings. As discussed in the Final EIR, cumulative impacts for Construction and Operational Air Quality Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Based on SCAQMD's recommendations, if an individual project is consistent with the AQMP performance standards, the project's cumulative impact should be considered less than significant. The analysis in the Final EIR's air quality section concludes that the Project would be consistent with the AQMP performance standards. Nevertheless, construction-period NOx emissions associated the Project are projected to result in a significant impact to air quality. As such, cumulative impacts related to construction would be significant and unavoidable. With respect to operational impacts, mass operational emission would exceed the recommended SCAQMD thresholds at Project buildout. Motor vehicle emissions account for over 75 percent of all the pollutant emissions for operations of the Project. Various Project design features would reduce the energy demand associated with the residential units and commercial buildings. [Recirculated Draft EIR IV.0-25] For example, a series of pathways and trails will conveniently connect recreational, park and open space opportunities to retail, hotel and residential uses throughout the Project, reducing vehicle trips and increasing community vitality [Specific Plan 3-1]. The proximity to a concentration of non-residential uses in the town center core and the built-in walkability of the community and connections to a broad range of home types within and outside of the Town Center Specific Plan help achieve the Specific Plan's Land Use Plan Objective to "reduce vehicular trips and reliance upon the automobile by providing a mix of amenities nearby." [Specific Plan 3-1, 3-3]. While the Project design features included in the Project to reduce vehicular travel would reduce operational emissions to the maximum extent feasible, emissions would still exceed the thresholds set by the SCAQMD. Therefore, these emissions would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. The significant and unavoidable impacts are outweighed and overridden by the economic, social, and other benefits detailed in Section 5.E, below. For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 3. (2) Noise (Section IV.H) Impact IV.H-3: Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. (iii) Mitigation Measures. MM IV.H-7, MM IV.H-8, MM IV.H-9, MM IV.H-10, MM IV.H-11, MM IV.H-12, MM IV.H-13, MM IV.H-14 (iv) Implementation. The identified mitigation measures will be included in the MMP adopted for the Project and incorporated in the Town Center Specific Plan. (i) Findings. As discussed in the Final EIR and shown in Table IV.H-9, implementation of the Project would increase local noise levels associated with traffic on three roadway segments by greater EXHIBIT "A"-20 than 5 dBA. These segments are La Piedra Road west of Sherman Road, La Piedra Road between Sherman Road and Haun Road, and Sherman Road south of La Piedra Road. Noise increases associated with HVAC systems would fall within the existing noise level range and be less than significant. Noise associated with delivery vehicles and loading/unloading dock activities would be required to be consistent with General Plan policy N 4.8, which requires "parking structures, terminals and loading docks of commercial or industrial land uses be designed to minimize the potential noise impacts of vehicles on the site as well as on adjacent land uses," and would be less than significant. Noise associated with parking facilities would not result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels as measured in CNEL. To address operational noise impacts, the Final EIR identifies the following mitigation measures. Although noise impacts associated with the operation of HVAC systems, loading areas, and parking facilities would be less than significant, the following mitigation measures would further reduce noise levels generated during implementation of the Project. MM IV.H-7: Project Developer(s)shall consider enclosing or shielding HVAC equipment from off-site properties (including other development within the Specific Plan). MM IV.H-8: HVAC units with the lowest sound power level shall be selected. MM IV.H-9: HVAC units shall be installed as far as possible from residential land uses. MM IV.H-10: Project Developer(s)shall consider enclosing or shielding loading areas from off-site properties (including other development within the Specific Plan). MM IV.H-11: Loading areas shall be located as far as possible from residential land uses. MM IV.H-12: Engine idling shall not be allowed for delivery trucks and other similar types of trucks. MM IV.H-13: Truck deliveries, trash compactor, and other loading/unloading activities are to be limited to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.). MM IV.H-14: Project Developer(s)shall consider siting parking facilities as far as possible from residential land uses. The Town Center Specific Plan also contains various standards to reduce exposures to excessive noise. Noise mitigation and proper design may include, but is not limited to, building orientation, double- or extra-strength windows, wall and ceiling insulation, and orientation and insulation of vents. Where it is necessary that windows be closed in order to achieve the required level, means shall be provided for ventilation/cooling to provide a habitable environment. [Specific Plan 4-13] In addition, the Town Center Specific Plan is designed to reduce vehicle traffic, which would have a corresponding reduction in vehicle noise. For example, the proximity to a concentration of non-residential uses in the town center core and the built-in walkability of the EXHIBIT "A"-21 community and connections to a broad range of home types within and outside of the Town Center Specific Plan help achieve the Specific Plan's Land Use Plan Objective to "reduce vehicular trips and reliance upon the automobile by providing a mix of amenities nearby." They Town Center Specific Plan will have a series of pedestrian linkages and networks to facilitate easy access to recreation, park and open space opportunities within the community. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways will connect amenities to nearby commercial uses, allowing for a reduction in local vehicle uses. [Specific Plan 3-1, 3-3]. Nevertheless, as explained in the Final EIR, Project-level traffic-related noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable as there is no feasible mitigation to reduce traffic associated with the Project. The significant and unavoidable impacts are outweighed and overridden by the economic social and other benefits detailed in Section 5.E. below. For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 3. Impact: Cumulative Operational Noise Impacts (i) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures are available to further reduce this impact. (ii) Findings. As discussed in the Final EIR, once the Project and all cumulative development has been constructed and are in full operation, the maximum increase in noise levels would occur on La Peidra Road west of Sherman Road and from Sherman Road to Haun Road. Sherman Road would also experience a relatively high increase in off-site vehicular noise levels. As shown in Table IV.H-10 in the Final EIR, cumulative development would result in a maximum cumulative noise level increase of 24.1 dBA CNEL for the segment of La Piedra Road west of Sherman Way. The large increase in noise level on this roadway is due to the large increase in traffic trips that are anticipated on this road once the Project and all related projects in the area are completed and in operation. Since the road segments mentioned above would experience noise level increases of more than 5 dBA, impacts would be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures MM IV.H-6 through MM IV.H-13, described above for Impact IV.H-3 would address other operational noise impacts, ensuring that impacts due to HVAC systems, delivery vehicles and loading/unloading dock activities and parking facilities would be less than significant. The Town Center Specific Plan is designed to reduce vehicle traffic, which would have a corresponding reduction in vehicle noise. For example, the proximity to a concentration of non- residential uses in the town center core and the built-in walkability of the community and connections to a broad range of home types within and outside of the Town Center Specific Plan help achieve the Specific Plan's Land Use Plan Objective to "reduce vehicular trips and reliance upon the automobile by providing a mix of amenities nearby." The Town Center Specific Plan will have a series of pedestrian linkages and networks to facilitate easy access to recreation, park and open space opportunities within the community. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways will connect amenities to nearby commercial uses, allowing for a reduction in local vehicle uses. [Specific Plan 3-1, 3-3]. Nevertheless, as explained in the Final EIR, Project-level traffic-related noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable as there is no feasible mitigation to reduce traffic associated with the Project. This conclusion represents a very conservative analysis due to the fact that it is possible that some or many of the related projects would not be developed and therefore cumulative traffic noise increases would not be as high as stated in this analysis. EXHIBIT "A"-22 For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 3. (2) Transportation/Traffic (Section IV.I) Impact IV.I-2: Conflict with Congestion Management Program, Including Level of Service Standards and Travel Demand Measures. (i) Mitigation Measures. MM IV.I-1 (ii) Implementation. The identified mitigation measures will be included in the MMP adopted for the Project and incorporated in the Town Center Specific Plan. (iii) Findings. As stated in the Final EIR, the City is in the process of creating its General Plan. In the absence of General Plan standards, or other thresholds of significance, the City generally follows County of Riverside level of service (LOS)standards. Riverside County uses LOS D as the threshold of acceptability in community development areas. Caltrans uses the transition between LOS C and LOS D as the threshold of acceptability, and generally a delay of more than 45 seconds is considered unsatisfactory. Since all study intersections are in community development areas or are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, the LOS standard of D applies. [Recirculated Draft EIR, page IV.I-11] As discussed in the EIR, the LOS analysis identified seven (7) intersections that would operate at unsatisfactory LOS under opening year(2013)without Project conditions and also operate at unsatisfactory conditions with the addition of the Project. Thus the Project would contribute to traffic at these intersections that would operate at unsatisfactory levels under 2013 Without Project conditions. [Recirculated Draft EIR IV.I-62]The Final EIR identifies recommended improvements to maintain an acceptable LOS at these intersections for year 2013, but because funding and ultimate implementation of some of the recommended improvements is uncertain at this time, Project impacts under the 2013 with Project scenario would be significant and unavoidable. The Final EIR also identifies eighteen (18) intersections that would operate under unsatisfactory LOS in the 2013 cumulative scenario. The Final EIR identifies recommended improvements to maintain an acceptable LOS at these intersections for year 2035, but because funding and ultimate implementation of some of the recommended regional improvements is uncertain at this time, Project impacts under the cumulative 2013 with Project scenario would be significant and unavoidable. In addition, the Final EIR identifies three (3) intersections that operate at unsatisfactory LOS under 2035 without Project conditions and also would operate at unsatisfactory conditions with the addition of the Project, and one (1) intersection that would operate at unsatisfactory conditions with the addition of the Project. However, the Final EIR identifies Project-specific circulation improvements that would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant. The Final EIR identifies the following required mitigation measure, which contains Project-specific and regional circulation improvements, shown in italics: MM IV.I-1: During the review process for each individual development under the Specific Plan, the City shall conduct or have conducted a traffic impact analysis that assesses the traffic generation and distribution for the individual development and the development's contribution to the LOS at EXHIBIT "A"-23 f the study intersections identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR for each of the traffic scenarios. a. If it is determined that a significant impact would occur at any of the study intersections listed in this mitigation measure during the referenced traffic scenarios, the project-specific improvement(s) (listed below) shall be implemented by the applicant of the individual project or the City, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.' b. If it is determined that a significant impacts would not occur, the Project Developer(s)shall contribute a fair-share payment(in proportion to the individual project's impact on traffic) toward the project-specific improvements (listed below), prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. C. The Project Developer(s) shall contribute a fair-share payment(in proportion to the individual project's impact on traffic) toward the regional improvements (listed below). This fair-share payment shall be inclusive of programmatic fees, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Opening Year(2013) Circulation Improvements Project-Specific Improvements • Avenida De Cortez-Sherman Road/Newport Road: Install a traffic signal. Add a westbound left-turn lane, a northbound left-turn lane, and an eastbound through lane. • Haun Road/Holland Road. Install a traffic signal. Add a northbound left-turn lane, and an eastbound left-turn lane, and restripe the southbound lanes to include a southbound left-turn lane and a southbound through/right-turn lane. Regional Improvements • Bradley Road/Potomac Drive: Convert the northbound-southbound center turn lane to a two-way left-turn lane. • 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Newport Road: The 1-215/Newport Road modified partial cloverleaf interchange configuration was applied as improvement. ' For the purposes of the analysis in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the Project is assessed 100 percent responsibility for funding of the identified project-specific improvements. In the event that other projects cause impacts at the referenced intersections, the developer of the individual project may enter into appropriate reimbursement agreement with the City. Also, some of the project-specific improvements have been identified for other recently approved projects. In the event that the project- specific improvements are constructed as a result of those projects, the project applicant could be required to enter into a reimbursement agreement. EXHIBIT "A"-24 • 1-215 Southbound Ramps/Newport Road. The 1-215/Newport Road modified partial cloverleaf interchange configuration was applied as , improvement. • 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Scott Road:Add a dedicated northbound right-turn lane and add a through lane on Scott Road between the northbound ramps and Antelope Road. This improvement can be considered as an interim improvement until the proposed 1-215/Scott Road interchange reconstruction is completed. • SR-79/Domenigoni Parkway. The realignment of SR-79 reduces traffic volumes at this intersection and will restore satisfactory operations at this intersection. Improvements for the Cumulative (2013) Circulation Improvements Project-Specific Improvements • Avenida De Cortez-Sherman Road/Newport Road. Install a traffic signal. Add a westbound left-turn lane, a northbound left-turn lane, and an eastbound through lane. • Haun Road/Holland Road. Install a traffic signal. Add a northbound left-turn lane, and an eastbound left-turn lane, and restripe the southbound lanes to include a southbound left-turn lane and a southbound through/right-turn lane. Regional Improvements • Murrieta Road/Newport Road.Add a southbound left-turn lane, a westbound left-turn lane, and provide overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn lane. • I-215 Southbound Ramps/McCa//Boulevard.Add a southbound left- turn lane and restripe the southbound through/left-turn lane to a/eft- turn/through/right-turn lane. • Bradley Road/Cherry Hills Boulevard. Install a traffic signal. • Bradley Road/Desert Hills Road.Add a northbound through lane, a southbound through lane, restripe the northbound lanes to include a northbound through/left-turn lane and northbound through lane, and restripe the southbound lanes to include a southbound through lane and southbound through/right-turn lane. • Bradley Road/Potomac Drive: Convert the northbound-southbound center turn lane to a two-way left-turn lane. Add a northbound through lane and a southbound through lane. EXHIBIT "A"-25 • Bradley Road/Newport Road.Add a northbound right-turn lane, an eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound through lane, and an eastbound right-turn lane. • Haun Road/Newport Road. The 1-215/Newport Road modified partial cloverleaf interchange configuration was applied as improvement. • Haun Road/Holland Road. Install a traffic signal. Add a southbound right-turn lane. • Haun Road/Scott Road. The I-215/Scott Road interchange reconstruction configuration was applied as improvement. Additionally, the intersection requires a second eastbound right-turn lane. • 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Newport Road. The I-215/Newport Road modified partial cloverleaf interchange configuration was applied as improvement. • I-215 Southbound Ramps/Newport Road. The 1-215/Newport Road modified partial cloverleaf interchange configuration was applied as improvement. • I-215 Southbound Ramps/Scott Road., The 1-215/Scott Road interchange reconstruction configuration was applied as improvement. • I-215 Northbound Ramps/Scott Road., The 1-215/Scott Road interchange reconstruction configuration was applied as improvement. Additionally, the intersection requires restriping of northbound right- turn lane to a shared northbound through/right-turn lane. • Antelope Road/Newport Road. The I-215/Newport Road modified partial cloverleaf interchange configuration was applied as improvement. 0 Menifee Road/Newport Road.Add a northbound left-turn lane, provide overlap phasing to the southbound right-turn lane, add an eastbound right-turn lane with overlap phasing, and add a westbound through lane. • SR-79/Domenigoni Parkway: The realignment of SR-79 reduces traffic volumes at this intersection and will restore satisfactory operations at this intersection. Year 2035 Circulation Improvements Project-Specific Improvements Bradley Road/Potomac Drive: Convert from a two-way stop control to an all-way stop control. EXHIBIT "A"-26 f • Avenida De Cortez-Sherman Road/Newport Road. Install a traffic signal. Add a westbound left-turn lane, and a northbound left-turn lane. • Sherman Road/La Piedra Road. Install a traffic signal. • Sherman Road/Holland Road. Convert from a two-way stop control to an all-way stop control. As explained in the Final EIR, the Project-specific improvements would reduce impacts for the year 2013 at two intersections to less than significant. These intersections are Avenida De Cortez-Sherman Road/Newport Road and Haun Road/Holland Road. However, for the following intersections, because the funding and ultimate timing of implementation of the regional improvements relative to the buildout of the Project is uncertain, impacts for the year 2013 would remain significant and unavoidable: • Bradley Road/Potomac Drive • 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Newport Road • 1-215 Southbound Ramps/Newport Road • 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Scott Road • SR-79/Domenigoni Parkway For the year 2035, Project-specific improvements would reduce impacts to less than significant at the four study intersections identified in the Final EIR as having unacceptable LOS in 2035. As explained in the Final EIR under cumulative without and with Project conditions, eighteen (18) intersections operate at unsatisfactory LOS for the year 2013. This scenario, includes trips from 73 cumulative projects, but does not take into account any circulation improvements that could be associated with the construction of the cumulative projects. The EIR identifies recommended improvements that would maintain an acceptable LOS at the aforementioned intersections for Year 2035. Project-specific improvements for the Avenida De Cortez-Sherman Road/Newport Road intersection and Haun Road/Holland Road intersection would reduce the impacts at these intersections to less than significant. However, because the funding and ultimate implementation of some of the recommended regional improvements is uncertain at this time, cumulative impacts under the cumulative (2013)with Project condition related to intersection LOS would remain significant and unavoidable. [Recirculated Draft EIR IV.1-99, 120]. The intersections where impacts remain significant and unavoidable are: • Murrieta Road/Newport Road • 1-215 Southbound Ramps/McCall Boulevard • 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Newport Road • 1-215 Southbound Ramps/Newport Road EXHIBIT "A"-27 • 1-215 Southbound Ramps/Scott Road • 1-215 Northbound Ramps/Scott Road • Bradley Road/Cherry Hills Boulevard 0 Bradley Road/Desert Hills Road • Bradley Road/Potomac Drive • Bradley Road/Newport Road • Haun Road/Newport Road • Menifee Road/Newport Road SR-79/Domenigoni Parkway For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 3. (3) Utilities (Section IV.J) Impact: Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts. (i) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures are available to further reduce this impact. (ii) Findings. As discussed in the Final EIR, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to solid waste generated during construction and operation. However, cumulative growth in the service area of the Riverside County Waste Management District and USA Waste of California could result in the need for additional landfill capacity. Although it is anticipated that there is sufficient capacity at Lamb Canyon Landfill, Badlands Landfill, and EI Sobrante Landfill to serve the Project, any existing capacity that currently exists within the landfill's service boundary is finite. Thus, it is considered that, without approved specific plans for substantial expansion of the landfill facilities that serve the County, solid waste generation from approved and foreseeable cumulative projects in the Project area vicinity would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues in the future. Development associated with cumulative projects within and around the City would be have cumulatively considerable solid waste impacts. The implementation of source reduction measures would be required on a project- specific basis for all cumulative projects, and plans such as those for recycling would partially address landfill capacity issues by diverting additional solid waste at the source of generation. The Final EIR describes the Project's contribution to the landfills, which would represent significantly less than one percent of the daily remaining capacity at each landfill. In addition, the Project applicant would try to establish a green and woody waste recycling program for all landscaped areas. Although the Project itself would have a less than significant contribution to EXHIBIT "A"-28 this effect, for the reasons discussed above the impacts associated with cumulative development would be significant and unavoidable. For the forgoing reasons, the City adopts Finding 3. D. Findings with Respect to Alternatives The Final EIR evaluated five alternatives to the proposed Project. The feasibility of each of these alternatives is determined below. (1) No Project Alternative (Alternative A). Section 15126.6 subdivision (e)of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the environmental impacts of the "No-Project" Alternative. The Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated one "No-Project"Alternative, which assumes the continuation of existing conditions within the site. The site would continue to be used as fallow agricultural land and vacant land and no infrastructure, buildings, parking areas, Project roadways or landscaping would be constructed on the Project site. Feasibility/Ability to Meet Project Objectives Where an EIR identifies one or more significant environmental effects that would not be avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation measures, the agency must consider the environmentally superior alternatives to the Project and determine whether they are infeasible and the reasons for that determination. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) To determine whether an alternative is feasible, the agency must take into account specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers. (Id.) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Among the factors that may be considered are inconsistency with the County's goals, objectives, and policies. The concept of"feasibility" encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes existing County policies, as well as the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "[F]easibility' under CEQA also encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982)133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) As explained further in the Recirculated Draft EIR, although the potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative A would be less than the environmental impacts of the Project, Alternative A would not achieve any of the 11 objectives of the Project. Specifically under Alternative A, • No comprehensive development plan that achieves the City's development goals for this portion of Menifee would be set forth; EXHIBIT "A"-29 • A balance of compatible and complementary residential, commercial, and recreational land uses in a well-designed master-planned community would not be provided; • Land uses, circulation, development standards, and design guidelines that enhance the character and visual appearance of the neighborhood would not be established; • Flexibility in land use regulations to accommodate unique opportunities that arise in the future as a result of changing market conditions would not be provided for; • Vehicular trips and reliance upon the automobile would not be provided by providing a mix of amenities nearby; • A community design that establishes unique residential villages with housing options for diverse ages and income levels would not be provided; • Recreational facilities and amenities to meet the needs of the community by incorporating a public park, neighborhood open spaces, and a trail system would not be provided; • The range of existing housing choices in Menifee would not be enhanced by providing both attached and detached housing options in one master-planned community; • An aesthetically pleasing and distinct community identity would not be created through the establishment of design criteria for landscaping, walls, street improvements, signs, entry monuments, and other planning and design features; • A sense of internal community connectivity would not be created and the relationship of buildings to the street within the Specific Plan area would not be enhanced; and • A strong sense of arrival into the Project would not be created. For these reasons, the City rejects this Alternative as infeasible within the meaning of CEQA and applicable CEQA case law. (2) Reduced Intensity Alternative (Alternative B). Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the Project site would be developed with 789 housing units and 418,993 square feet of commercial, office, and hotel uses. Development on the Project site would be contained within fewer buildings, thereby reducing development on the Project site in intensity from the Project footprint. Similar to the Project, Alternative B would develop a master planned community comprised of complementary commercial, recreational, civic, residential, and educational land uses. Other aspects of Alternative B would be similar to the Project by, for example, including an extension of Sherman Road through the center of the Project site and a series of smaller roads within each residential neighborhood, providing a EXHIBIT "A"-30 pedestrian-only entrance on the west side of Haun Road and other pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and providing similar storm water and wastewater infrastructure. The text of the Recirculated Draft EIR and Table VI-1 explain that Alternative B would result in reduced impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, noise, traffic and transportation, and utilities in comparison to the Project. However, impacts to construction and operational air quality, traffic-related operational noise, contributions on exceedances of LOS, and cumulative solid waste impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Feasibility/Ability to Meet Project Objectives As stated in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would achieve all 11 objectives of the Project. In addition, the Recirculated Draft EIR identified Alternative B as the environmentally superior alternative, beyond the No Project Alternative, because Alternative B would result in less intense development compared to the Project and would reduce the Project's impacts with respect to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, noise, traffic and transportation, and utilities. However, although Alternative B would reduce significant impacts related to air quality, noise, and utilities, these impacts would not be reduced substantially or to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, Alternative B does not represent an improvement over the Project with respect to significant and unavoidable impacts. For these reasons, the City rejects this Alternative as infeasible within the meaning of CEQA and applicable CEQA case law. (3) School Site Alternative (Alternative C). Under the School Site Alternative, the Project site would be developed similarly to the Project, with the exception that the elementary school site and associated open space and playing fields in the southern portion of the Project site would be made available for residential development of up to 119 additional residential units. Alternative C would develop the Project site with 1,119 housing units and 558,657 square feet of commercial, office, and hotel uses. Similar to the Project, Alternative C would develop a master planned community comprised of complementary commercial, recreational, civic, and residential land uses. Other aspects of Alternative B would be similar to the Project by, for example, including an extension of Sherman Road through the center of the Project site and a series of smaller roads within each residential neighborhood, providing a pedestrian-only entrance on the west side of Haun Road and other pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and providing similar storm water and wastewater infrastructure. As explained in the Recirculated Draft EIR and shown in Table VI-1, Alternative C would have lesser impacts with respect to utilities impacts, because the 119 residential units would have require less water and would generate less wastewater and solid waste compared to the school. Impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and noise would be similar to the Project. Impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology/water quality and traffic and transportation would be slightly greater than those impacts would be under the Project. Similar to the Project, Alternative C would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to construction and operational air emissions, and would also contribute to intersections operating at an unacceptable traffic LOS. The School Site Alternative would reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts related to operational traffic- related noise and cumulative landfill capacity. EXHIBIT "A"-31 Feasibility/Ability to Meet Project Objectives The Recirculated Draft EIR explains that Alternative C would achieve all 11 objectives of the Project. However, while the School Site Alternative would reduce the number of vehicle trips and emissions, it would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts to construction and operational air quality. Although Alternative C would generate less noise related to operational traffic-related noise, it would generate more noise and vibration from construction vehicles, grading and construction-worker vehicle trips, and more on-site operational noise due to rooftop HVAC systems. Although the solid waste impacts of the Project would be reduced by this Alternative, Alternative C would not reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable traffic impacts. Therefore, Alternative C does not represent an improvement over the Project with respect to significant and unavoidable impacts. For these reasons, the City rejects this Alternative as infeasible within the meaning of CEQA and applicable CEQA case law. (4) Residentially Oriented Alternative (Alternative D). As described in the Recirculated Draft EIR, under Alternative D, the Project site would be developed with 1,755 residential units and up to 362,637 square feet of commercial, office, and hotel uses. Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative D would include 702 additional residential units and 196,020 fewer square feet of commercial, office, and hotel uses. As shown in Figure VI-1 in the Recirculated Draft EIR, similar to the proposed Project, the emphasis of Alternative D would remain on an intensely developed town center core oriented around a large community feature and a 200-room hotel. Some of the commercial and office uses would be replaced by a total of approximately 1,054 higher density senior and traditional multi-family and single-family housing units. Under Alternative D, a high-visibility retail corner would be constructed on the 12 acres of land at the southwest corner of Newport and Haun Roads. The remainder of the Project site would include approximately 700 low-density single-family and medium-density multi-family housing units. Alternative D would not include an elementary school. Other aspects of Alternative D would be similar to the proposed Project. As further explained in the Recirculated Draft EIR and shown in Table VI-1, this Alternative would have lesser impacts than the proposed Project with respect to impacts concerning aesthetics and traffic and transportation; however impacts related to intersection LOS and conflicts with a congestion management plan would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed Project. Impacts with respect to biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning and noise would be similar under Alternative D and the proposed Project. Impacts to utilities would be greater under Alternative D because demand for water and recycled water would be substantially increased, and this Alternative Would also generate more wastewater and solid waste compared to the proposed Project. With respect to air quality, Alternative D would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from construction emissions, and would reduce, but not eliminate, the proposed Project's significant and unavoidable impacts related to operational emissions. Feasibility/Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative D would achieve all 11 objectives of the Project. However, Alternative D would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to operational and construction air emissions, operational traffic-related noise, and impacts related to intersection LOS and conflicts with a congestion management plan. Because Alternative D does not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project, Alternative D does not EXHIBIT "A"-32 represent an improvement over the Project. For these reasons, the City rejects this Alternative as infeasible within the meaning of CEQA and applicable CEQA case law. (5) Commercially Oriented Alternative (Alternative E). Under Alternative E, the Project site would be developed with 997 residential units and up to 707,240 square feet of commercial, office, and hotel uses. Compared to the Project, Alternative E would include 56 fewer residential units and 143,583 square feet of additional commercial, office, and hotel uses. As shown in Figure VI-2 in the Recirculated Draft EIR, similar to the proposed Project, the emphasis of Alternative E would remain in the town center core, but the town center would be reduced in size to allow more land to be used for non- residential uses. In comparison to the commercial uses in the proposed Project, the non- residential uses would occupy a larger number of acres under Alternative E, although the average floor area ratio (FAR)for Alternative E would be slightly lower at 0.22. The residential uses would be distributed to the Project site's southern and western boundaries while the commercial, office, and hotel uses would be largely brought to the northern and eastern boundaries to fully utilize the proximity to Newport and Haun Roads. Under Alternative E, a high-visibility retail corner would be constructed on the 12 acres of land at the southwest corner of Newport and Haun Roads. Alternative E would not include an elementary school. Other aspects of Alternative E would be similar to the proposed Project. As further explained in the Recirculated Draft EIR and shown in Table VI-1, this Alternative would have slightly greater impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed Project. Impacts to biological resources, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning and noise would be similar under Alternative E and the Project. Impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, utilities and traffic and transportation would be less than under the proposed Project, although impacts related to LOS and conflicts with a congestion management plan would remain significant and unavoidable. With respect to air quality, Alternative E would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction emissions, and Alternative E would reduce, but not eliminate, the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts related to operational emissions. Feasibility/Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative E would achieve all 11 objectives of the Project. However, this Alternative would still have significant and unavoidable impacts related to operational and construction air quality, operational traffic-related noise, and impacts related to intersection LOS and conflicts with a congestion management plan. Alternative E would decrease the Project's significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to landfill capacity. Nevertheless, this Project does not represent a substantial improvement over the Project, with respect to significant and unavoidable impacts. For these reasons, the City rejects this Alternative as infeasible within the meaning of CEQA and applicable CEQA case law. (6) Conclusion Regarding Project Alternatives Based on the foregoing analysis and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the County has considered a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project and would avoid or substantially lessen certain significant effects of the Project. The County has evaluated the comparative merits of the various alternatives and identified and analyzed a number of potential environmentally superior alternatives in addition to the No Project alternative. After the No Project alternative, EXHIBIT "A"-33 the next environmentally superior alternative would be Alternative B, the Reduced Intensity Alternative, because it would result in less intense development compared to the proposed Project. Alternative B would also reduce the proposed Project's impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, noise, traffic and transportation, and utilities. With respect to land use, Alternative B would result in similar impacts compared to the proposed Project. However, while Alternative B would reduce impacts related to air quality, noise, and utilities, these impacts would not be reduced substantially or to a less than significant level. Based on this analysis and substantial evidence in the record, the City finds and determines that the alternatives cannot achieve the Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed Project, and do not represent substantial environmental benefits over the proposed Project and are therefore rejected as infeasible in favor of the proposed Project. EXHIBIT "A"-34 EXHIBIT"B" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 et seq., the City must adopt and make a statement of overriding considerations regarding the unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the Project. After extensive review of the entire administrative record, including the Final EIR, the staff reports and the oral and written testimony, and the evidence provided the City concludes that the potential environmental impacts of the Project have been avoided or substantially lessened to the extent feasible. The remaining unavoidable impacts related to construction-period air quality impacts, operational air quality impacts, cumulative air quality impacts, permanent increase in ambient noise levels, noise levels in excess of the General Plan or other applicable standards, cumulative operational noise, traffic levels in conflict with congestion management plan or LOS standards, and cumulative solid waste impacts, are acceptable in light of the benefits of the Project based on the Findings below: • The City has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project, as described above. • All Mitigation Measures recommended in the Final EIR have been incorporated into the Project and will be implemented through the MMP, attached as Exhibit "C." • All alternatives to the Project, set forth in the Final EIR, do not provide substantial environmental benefits over the Project because they do not reduce its significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant, and the City finds that Project objectives and/or specific economic, social and other benefits outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives, as described in Section 5(d) above. • In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of the Project against these unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects described in Section 5.C, above. The following statements specify the reasons why, in the City's judgment, the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable environmental risks. The City also finds that any one of the following reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City will stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the City's Findings and the benefits described below can be found in the Record of Proceedings. Economic Benefits ■ The Project sets forth a comprehensive development plan that achieves the City's development goals for this portion of Menifee EXHIBIT "B"-1 and represents the logical development pattern occurring in the area. The Project will provide high-quality commercial and residential development to enhance the surrounding community and provide opportunities to meet the demands of local and regional area businesses and the community. ■ The Town Center Specific Plan includes a high-visibility retail corner at the southwest corner of Newport and Haun Roads and a diversity of employment opportunities for those who live and work in the community, which will create positive net fiscal revenue to fund City services through increased sales tax revenues. ■ The Project will provide for Project-specific and regional infrastructure needs and will provide space for an elementary school, civic center and other community-serving uses including trails, museums, libraries and police stations to meet needs of Menifee residents. By providing for its own backbone public infrastructure and linking to existing infrastructure, the Project will make efficient use of existing facilities and reduce costs on infrastructure construction for the region as a whole. ■ The Town Center Specific Plan proposes a mixture of land uses to create a town center that provides opportunities for housing, employment, including construction-period jobs and permanent jobs at the Project's office and civic center components, and recreation, consistent with Southern California Area Governments plans and General Plan policies to accommodate communities that provide a balanced mix of land uses that maintain and enhances the County's fiscal viability, economic diversity and environmental integrity. ■ The Project explicitly permits live/work units to facilitate the opportunity for people to work from home. These homes are specifically designed to provide adequate working space and accommodate clients while being consistent with and beneficial to both residential and non-residential settings, in furtherance of General Plan policies that emphasize the importance of maintaining a jobs-housing balance, allowing home enterprise and home occupation activities, and connecting job centers to transit. ■ By providing a strong sense of arrival into the Project site and establishing design standards that create a sense of internal community connectivity, the Town Center Specific Plan will create a unique, distinct community identity to encourage commerce and public use of the area that will enhance economic activity. The Project's dedication of land for a City Hall or other civic uses will reduce the cost of providing civic amenities to residents of the City. ■ The Town Center Specific Plan capitalizes on its proximity to the 1- 215/Newport Road interchange, and would provide for focused commercial development accessible from the surrounding areas, fostering livability and mobility for residents, consistent with General Plan policies and principles of the Compass Growth Vision and the Regional Transportation Plan. EXHIBIT "B"-2 ■ The Project would provide for increased property tax revenue, sales tax revenue from commercial development and other revenue to the City through development fees applicable to the Project. Social Benefits ■ The Town Center Specific Plan provides a balance of compatible and complementary residential, commercial, and recreational land uses in a well-designed master-planned community. ■ The Project would contribute to the range of existing housing choices in Menifee by providing both attached and detached housing options, providing housing options for diverse ages and income levels, consistent with the General Plan and the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan. ■ The Project would provide a link and transitional space between existing exclusively residential and commercial developments, in furtherance of General Plane policies to ensure compatibility of new development with the surrounding communities. Furthermore, the commercial, civic and employment uses at the Town Center Specific Plan would serve the surrounding communities. ■ Design guidelines are established in the Town Center Specific Plan to ensure a high level of design and cohesion between different areas of the community. The design guidelines would facilitate the development of aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, landmark buildings, and a sense of place. This is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.1(e), to re-plan existing urban cores and specific plans for higher density and compact development to meet regional planning goals, General Plan Policy LU 3.3, to promote the development of unique communities with a special sense of place, and General Plan Policy LU 4.1, to locate and design development in a way that will visually enhance, not degrade the character of the surrounding areas. ■ The Town Center Specific Plan would provide the foundation for the creation of a community that is safely accessed by pedestrians and vehicles and for a variety of uses to coexist in a way that is healthy for all occupants and fosters livability. Permanent jobs at the Town Center's office and civic center components will be accessible to pedestrians, public transit users and non-motorized transit. Internal roadway design will include traffic calming techniques to reduce potential conflicts between residential uses and commercial delivery needs, increasing safety and walkability, in furtherance of General Plan policies to locate and design development in a way that will visually enhance, not degrade the character of the surrounding areas, encourage innovative and 2 As noted in the EIR, until the City completes its General Plan Update,the Project site is governed by the Riverside County Integrated Project("RCIP"),which includes the Riverside County General Plan. EXHIBIT "B"-3 creative design concepts, and require new development to provide for pedestrian access and connectivity. ■ The Town Center Specific Plan Land Use Plan establishes a design hierarchy of local roads, collector roads and secondary highways that feed into arterial streets serving the City. The Town Center Specific Plan provides direction for integrating the Project into the existing road network and enhancing it with pedestrian paths and multimodal trails, which will ensure that the Project will maintain the existing transportation network, while providing for future expansion and improvement based on travel demand, including alternative travel modes, consistent with General Plan Policy C 3.2. The Plan acknowledges the potential for future expansions of public transportation services and associated amenities. Opportunities for shared parking among different land uses could reduce the number of parking spaces needed and land needed for parking, freeing up additional space for open space, landscaping and enhancing the transit-oriented nature of the development. ■ The Town Center Specific Plan includes a 5-acre public park within the Mixed Use Town Center, and, through the terms of the Development Agreement, will provide substantially more park than legally required. Improved, active park spaces will be provided a ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, instead of the currently legal requirement of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The ultimate number of acres of park will depend on the number of residential units built on the site, but is estimated to be between 9 and 15 acres. If a school is built, it will be connected to the Project's 15-foot wide multipurpose trail (which will have an additional 5-foot span of landscaping)via pedestrian paths. ■ The Project, through the terms of the Development Agreement, will dedicate 6.0 acres at no cost to the City for the future development of a City Hall, or other civic use, such as a performing arts center or public library. This civic space and the Project's town center design reflect the recent incorporation of the City and will provide a central gathering place and downtown for City residents. ■ The Project provides an approximately 11.9 acre site for a potential future school that, if acquired by the School District, would serve the future residents of the Project and the City. ■ The Project, through the Development Agreement, provides a 5.2 acre site for the potential relocation of a region-serving courthouse that could be acquired by the Office of Courthouse Construction for 50% of fair market value. Region-wide or Statewide Environmental Benefits ■ The Town Center Specific Plan would be an infill development that proposes the construction of a hierarchy of streets and trails to provide safe access to vehicles and pedestrians. EXHIBIT "B"-4 ■ Cyclists and pedestrians would have access to the proposed bridge that crosses the channel and the multipurpose trail adjacent to the channelized segment of the Paloma Wash, consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.1(b) to promote development of infill and underutilized parcels, and General Plan Policy LU 3.1(d) to create street and trail networks that directly connect local destinations and are friendly to non-motorized forms of transportation and General Plan Policy C 1.2 to support development of a variety of transportation options for employment and activity centers, and Sun City/Menifee Area Plan policies to preserve and protect the Paloma Wash corridor. The Town Center Specific Plan's parkway designs for all roadways (except for alleys or service drives) provide for five-foot walkways on both sides of the right-of-way to ensure ample pedestrian access and connectivity. ■ By providing vertically mixed uses and a variety of housing types, permanent and construction-period employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities within walking distance of each other and being served by pedestrian, cycling, and public transit amenities, the Project will reduce reliance on automobiles and help improve air quality, consistent with General Plan policies and regional and statewide environmental priorities. ■ In addition to pedestrian and bicycle connections, residents, business owners, and employees in the Town Center Specific Plan area would be connected to public transit through three bus routes, 61, 74, and 208. Routes 74 and 208 lead to surrounding transfer points, existing transportation hubs and current and proposed Metrolink stations. This furthers General Plan policies to accommodate compact, transit-adaptive infrastructure and to provide linked communities through access to multi-modal transportation systems, and Sun City/Menifee Area Plan policies to encourage linkages between transit services. ■ The Town Center Specific Plan proposes landscaping and site planning elements to reduce environmental and visual impacts. Landscaping standards would include environmentally conscious directions such as selecting native plants, drought-tolerant species, automated high efficiency irrigation systems, and using canopy trees to reduce solar heat gain. In addition, the Plan encourages builders to use sustainable design features such as solar panels, light shelves, overhangs, light-colored rooftop materials and other features to reduce energy consumption. These Project components are consistent with General Plan and Sun City/Menifee Area Plan policies promoting drought-tolerant landscaping, use of active and passive solar access opportunities, and the pursuit of energy efficiency through street configuration, building orientation and landscaping. ■ The Project includes a series of landscape buffers, including pedestrian amenities, would provide transitional spaces between differing uses. A 15-foot-wide multipurpose trail with a 5-foot-wide landscaping span is planned along the western edge of the EXHIBIT "B"-5 drainage channel. A variety of park and open space amenities are planned throughout the Project site. These features incorporate open space, community greenbelt separators and recreational amenities into development to enhance recreational opportunities and community aesthetics and improve residents' quality of life, consistent with the General Plan. ■ The Town Center Specific Plan Land Use Plan establishes a design hierarchy of local roads, collector roads and secondary highways that feed into arterial streets serving the City. The Town Center Specific Plan provides direction for integrating the Project into the existing road network and enhancing it with pedestrian paths and multimodal trails, which will ensure that the Project will maintain the existing transportation network, while providing for future expansion and improvement based on travel demand, including alternative travel modes, consistent with General Plan Policy C 3.2. The Plan acknowledges the potential for future expansions of public transportation services and associated amenities. • The foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated; and • Each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. • Economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further Mitigation Measures beyond those incorporated into the Project. EXHIBIT "B"-6 EXHIBIT "C" MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM EXHIBIT "C"-1