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