Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-21 PC Resolution PC RESOLUTION NO. 15-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE AUDI OF TEMECULA PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE AUDI OF TEMECULA PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400-032) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: A. On April 6, 2015, Andrew Dzulynsky of Ware Malcomb Architects and Kathryn Conniff of the Horine Group filed Planning Application No. PA15-0513, Development Plan, which application is hereby incorporated by reference. The Project applicant proposes to develop an automobile dealership encompassing a showroom and offices, auto parts and service facility, and a bay for car washing and detailing totaling approximately 37,500 square feet. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the Authority and principal responsibility for approving the Project. C. The City proceeded with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Audi of Temecula Project pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163 because the project site falls within the Harveston Specific Plan which was the subject of a separate EIR (SCH# 1999041033) and only minor additions would be necessary to make this previously certified EIR adequately apply with regard to the Audi of Temecula Project. D. In addition, a Supplemental EIR is in compliance with CEQA for the Audi of Temecula Project because the conditions as described in Public Resources Code 21166 and in CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163 exist because the development of an Audi dealership on the Project site constitutes new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR. E. The previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR involved extensive environmental review on a variety of environmental topics for both the current project site as well as the surrounding area covered by the Harveston Specific Plan. As such, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the prior Specific Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference to the extent any mitigation measures articulated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are applicable to the Audi of Temecula Project site In addition, the mitigation measures in this Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be adopted as conditions of approval of the Audi of Temecula Project to the extent they are applicable to the project site. However, no mitigation measures regarding a fair-share contribution to regional traffic improvements systems shall be applicable to the Audi of Temecula Project as this fair-share contribution has been satisfied by the original developer applicant. Additionally, any mitigation measures regarding specific infrastructure improvements identified in the Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been satisfied and are therefore not applicable to the Audi of Temecula Project. The Harveston Specific Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are available for public review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. F. In addition to the prior Harveston Specific Plan EIR, the project site and the surrounding Harveston Specific Plan Area is the subject of a development agreement entered into between the City of Temecula, and Lennar Homes, Inc. and Winchester Hills, LLC (collectively "owner") in 2001. This prior development agreement provides certain vested rights to the owners. The subject site is part of the Harveston Specific Plan that is addressed in the development agreement and all action taken by the City with regard to the Mercedes- Benz project site, including CEQA environmental review and required mitigation, is in full compliance with all legal rights articulated in the development agreement. G. On May 5, 2015, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("Draft SEIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants. The NOP requested comments from the public by June 8, 2015. H. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The comment letter assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft SEIR. On March 25, 2015 and August 13, 2015, community meetings were held to solicit public input and comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIR and on the proposed Project. J. Upon completion of the Draft SEIR dated July 2015, the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on July 20, 2015. K. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft SEIR at the City's library and made copies available for review at City offices. The public comment period for the Draft SEIR was from July 20, 2015 through September 8, 2015. L. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft SEIR, the City received five (5) written comment letters from the State Clearinghouse, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Transportation, Eastern Municipal Water District, and Rancho California Water District, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final SEIR). M. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and CEQA Guideline 15088, the City provided its responses to all public agency comments 10 days prior to any certification of the SEIR. N. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section IV, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. O. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as potentially significant but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section V, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. P. No environmental impacts are identified in the SEIR as significant and unavoidable. Q. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Exhibit A, Section VI, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. R. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered and has exercised its independent judgment on the proposed Final SEIR and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings and finds that the Final SEIR is adequate and was prepared in full compliance with CEQA. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the SEIR under CEQA requiring additional public review because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, California, hereby certifies the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and all changes to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as described in the Errata which is part of the Final SEIR, adopts findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of Project approval, and incorporates by reference the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR (SCH# 1999041033), and imposes all mitigation measures therein that are applicable to the project site as conditions of Project approval. City staff shall implement and monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B and those applicable to the Project site from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the Harveston Specific Plan EIR. Section 1 . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21st day of October 2015. / 1 r. a a rejo, Chairperson ATTES • uke Watson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 15-21 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: 3 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Telesio, Turley-Trejo, Youmans NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None t 'p Luke Watson, Secretary EXHIBIT A Findings and Facts in Support of Findings I. Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.1 Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Audi of Temecula project (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft SEIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. II. Project Objectives As set forth in the SEIR, objectives that the City of Temecula and applicant seek to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: Cal, Pub. Res.Code§ 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091. The City's project objectives include: • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. • Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serve the needs of the City residents. • Create job growth for the local economy. The applicant's project objectives are: • To adequately serve the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. • To maximize Audi's market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. • To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. III. Previous Environmental Review The project is located within the Harveston Specific Plan that was approved in 2001. This Specific Plan covers approximately 550 acres and is located between Margarita Road and Interstate 15, along the Temecula City limits, in the northwest section of the City. The Specific Plan depicts a land use designation of Service Commercial for the project site. The proposed use, an automotive dealership, is consistent with the applicable land use and zoning designation in the Specific Plan. The SEIR has been prepared to address the anticipated environmental effects of the project in conformance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, as amended. City staff has determined that only minor changes to the previously certified Harveston Specific Plan EIR are necessary to address the impacts of the project. Therefore, the project does not require a major revision to the previously certified Harveston Specific Plan EIR, and a Supplemental EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, is the appropriate document to respond to these minor project-specific changes. The environmental analysis for the project assessed whether the project would result in a new significant environmental effect not previously addressed in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR or a substantial increase in severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect. Section 15150(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR: may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR. In light of the previous environmental review contained in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 1999041033), the SEIR incorporates by reference the relevant analysis of environmental topics considered in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR. The level of specificity of an EIR is determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason. The City, as lead agency, has determined the key environmental issues that could have significant impacts associated with the project, and which are the focus of this SEIR analysis, include: (A) aesthetics, (B) air quality, (C) greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, (D) noise, (E) biological resources, (F) transportation and traffic, and (G) hydrology/water quality and water supply. Based on previous environmental analysis, existing conditions of the project site, and project details, the following environmental effects were adequately evaluated in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR and determined not to be significant for the project; and, therefore, are were not analyzed in the SEIR: agriculture and forestry, land use, geology and soils, public services and utilities, cultural resources, population and housing, and growth-inducing impacts. A. On May 6, 2015, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including land owners, tenants, and business owners in proximity to the site. The NOP requested comments by June 8, 2015. Responses to the NOP were received from the following agencies: the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. No project-specific concerns were raised by these agencies. In addition to the pubic noticing required under CEQA, City staff held an informational meeting on March 25, 2015 at the Harveston clubhouse with the residents of the Harveston community to explain the project and listen to any concerns. The community raised concern about the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Waverly and Ynez to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the street at the intersection. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation The Draft Supplemental EIR completed in July 2015 found that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Supplemental EIR. A. Aesthetics 1 . The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 3. The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. B. Air Quality 1. The Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 2. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. 3. The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4. The Project would note create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. C. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 1. The Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. D. Noise 1 . The Project would not expose persons to, or generate, excessive ground- borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. 2. The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 3. The Project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 4. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. 5. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. E. Biological Resources 1 . The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 3. The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. 4. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 5. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. F. Transportation and Traffic 1. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 2. The Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. 3. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. 4. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 5. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. 6. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. 7. The Project would not result in a change in level of service conditions at an intersection from LOS D to LOS E or LOS F. 8. The Project would not result in an increase in vehicle delay by two seconds or more at an intersection operating at LOS E or F. 9. The Project would not result in a cumulative impact due to an increase in delay of two or more seconds at an intersection currently operating at LOS E or F. G. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 2. The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. 3. The Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. 4. The Project would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. 5. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level The Draft Supplemental EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of: aesthetics: noise; biological resources; hydrology and water quality; and noise. Measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts in this section to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final Supplemental EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final Supplemental EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in Exhibit C. A. Aesthetics 1. New Source of Light and Glare The project would establish a new use on an undeveloped site which would result in increased light and glare sources. The project would include nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. This new source of light could have adverse effects on nighttime views and surrounding communities in proximity of the site. As described below, these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, which ensure that the Project's potential light and glare impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: The following measures to reduce light and glare are required: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut- off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. "Sharp cut-off' fixtures are designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize light spillover and create little- to-no glare. This fixture contains a sharp cut-off to reduce waste light. The lamp is deeply recessed within the reflector to eliminate glare. • The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site and no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle. • The applicant shall incorporate step-down lighting into the project to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Director. The step-down lighting shall occur each evening between the following intervals: 6:00 P.M., 7:30 P.M. and 10:30 P.M. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping to block light sources and reflection from cars. Well-placed landscaping would reduce glare from cars in the parking lot and from metal/glass building surfaces, and help to shield nighttime security lighting from adjacent roadway systems. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project-specific development within the project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield; o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and, o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. • In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps, step-down lighting techniques, shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non- mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. b) Facts in Support of Findings The Project will be required to comply with existing Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance No. 655 requiring lighting to fully shielded, where feasible, and partially shielded, in all other cases. Lighting for on- premises advertising displays would be shielded and focused to minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent properties. With the implementation of MM-AES-1, potential light and glare impacts associated with the project will be less than significant. B. Noise and Vibration (operations) 1. Operational Noise New development within the Project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that are located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. Specifically, new development within the Project area could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 69 dBA Ldn over ambient levels due to operation of the outdoor loudspeaker paging system. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the following mitigation measures that reduce the potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1: The applicant shall implement a silent paging system throughout the project to eliminate loudspeaker paging noise. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1 would ensure that a silent paging system would be used for the project in lieu of a loudspeaker paging system. With implementation of this mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. C. Biological Resources 1. Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, or Candidate Species The project could have potential adverse effects on special-status wildlife species, including the burrowing owl, as well as other migratory birds and raptors protected under California Fish and Game Code and/or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that have the potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the project site. It is possible that direct and indirect impacts to wildlife from project-level development activities (e.g., grading, vegetation removal, excavation and construction, temporary changes to the hydrology, and increased dust and noise levels during construction) could occur. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to special status species remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-B10-1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of the following measure: A pre-construction clearance survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist who is knowledgeable in the nesting requirements of the avian species in the region. The survey shall occur no more than 3 days_prior to any construction or ground-disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). An appropriate buffer from construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest is no longer considered active, as determined by a qualified biologist. On- site monitoring during construction by a biological monitor may also be required based on sensitivity of the species and proximity of the nest to construction activities. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Mitigation Measure MM-B10-2: Impacts to burrowing owl shall be avoided through implementation of the following measure: • Due to the project site's location within a burrowing owl survey area and presence of suitable habitat on the project site (regardless of the findings of the focused burrowing owl survey), a 30-day pre- construction survey for burrowing owl is required in accordance with the MSHCP. The one-day survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all suitable habitat areas on the project site and study area, and will focus on areas previously identified during the focused surveys as containing suitable habitat and potentially suitable burrows. If no burrowing owls are observed construction may commence. If burrowing owls are observed the RCA and/or City will be notified and additional measures will be required to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP. Since burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSCHP, burrowing owls (less than 3 pairs) that occupy the site may be evicted from their burrows and allowed to move offsite. b) Facts in Support of Findings Although, implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to special status species as discussed above, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 which require pre- construction and construction biological surveys, measures to protect species and habitat if they are encountered, and compliance with the MSHCP, potential impacts to special status species, sensitive species, or candidate species would be minimized to a less than significant level. D. Hydrology and Water Quality 1 . Impacts from Stormwater Runoff Operation of the proposed Project would involve the conversion of the current undeveloped lot into a new automobile dealership with the addition of new impermeable surfaces that would alter the direction, volume and rate of overland flows during storm events. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impact associated with stormwater runoff is less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100-year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. b) Facts in Support of Findings In addition to Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1, compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in effect at the time of construction would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). As a result, construction activities would not contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system, or the capacity of new system components installed under implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1. Adherence to requirements of the City and the Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) drainage control requirements, as stated in Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1, in effect at the time of construction would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff. Impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff and drainage capacity would be less than significant with mitigation. 2. Erosion and Siltation The project would develop the currently vacant site and create new impervious surfaces (approximately 127,800 square feet) that could create additional stormwater flows offsite potentially increasing the potential for increased erosion and siltation if not designed appropriately. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts related to erosion and siltation to less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1 . b) Facts in Support of Findings Adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in Mitigation Measure HYD-1, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff through maximizing onsite infiltration through permeable paving and bio-retention basins and thereby minimizing the potential for erosion and siltation. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. VI. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the Program EIR An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and, therefore, merit in-depth consideration. and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(3)). An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is "remote and speculative' such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond the control of a project applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." While other similar-sized areas of land could be found, based on the known general conditions, allowed uses in the area, and the magnitude of the proposal, an alternative site in the area would likely have the same or similar impacts after mitigation as the project. In addition, an alternative location is beyond the control of the applicant and would be difficult to still proceed within a reasonably similar time frame for project completion. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this Project. The Supplemental EIR analyzed three other project alternatives. These three alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various reasons stated below. B. Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR 1. Alternative One — No Project Alternative (No Development) a) Summary of Alternative This alternative is analyzed within project-level EIR as it is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the "no project" analysis shall discuss, "...what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." When the project is a development project, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that "the No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed." So, for the purposes of this EIR, the No Project Alternative represents a scenario under which the Project would not be built and the site would remain in its existing undeveloped condition. The site would continue to contain a temporary storm water siltation basin and non-native grasses and ruderal forbs on a previously graded lot. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in fewer impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, noise, biological resources, transportation and traffic, and hydrology, water quality, and water supply than the proposed project because no changes would occur at the site. However, this Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, this Alternative would not support the development objectives for the Harveston Specific Plan Service Commercial area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. 2. Alternative Two — Reduced Project Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the project's building square footage would be reduced by one-third from approximately 37,470 square feet to approximately 24,730 square feet. The project components would be similar to the project as proposed, but at a smaller scale. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative As a result of the reduced amount of development under Alternative 2, there would be a shortened construction period, less construction equipment usage, and reduced vehicle trips to the site generated by employees and patrons. and thus a reduction in all impacts areas. This includes impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, noise, biological resources, transportation and traffic, and hydrology, water quality, and water supply. Alternative 2 would meet several of the proposed Project objectives; however by reducing the size of the facility it fails to meet these specific project objectives: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi's market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. For this reason, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. 3. Alternative Three — Retail Use Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the project site would be developed as a commercial retail center comprised of a typical mix of uses found in such centers, such as sales offices, restaurants, banks and financial institutions; and permitted in the Service Commercial area of the Harveston Specific Plan. Using the target floor area ratio (FAR) in the Harveston Specific Plan for Service Commercial of 0.4 FAR, the building square feet of commercial under this alternative would more than double to approximately 78.400 square feet as compared to the project's approximately 37,470 square feet. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative 3 would result in greater building mass that would increase light and glare effects. Alternative 3 would likely have a longer construction period resulting in increased temporary air quality and noise impacts. Alternative 3 would more than double the proposed development intensity on the site thereby increasing employees and patronage to the site, which would result in greater operational emissions. greenhouse gas emissions, and increased vehicular traffic noise, as compared to the project. Alternative 3 would result in nearly three times as many vehicle trips as the proposed Project; therefore the alternative would result in greater impacts to the circulation system as compared to the Project. Under Alternative 3, a similar area of ground would be disturbed and impacts to biological resources would be similar to those under the proposed project. Although there would be more impervious surfaces on the site under Alternative 3, the project would be required to adopt a water quality management plan and best management practices in both cases to ensure that it also did not have significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 3 would result in a greater demand for potable water than the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would meet several of the project objectives; however by developing a use on the site other than a new car dealership, it fails to meet these specific objectives: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi's market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. Therefore, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative (No Development) would be environmentally superior to the project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative (No Development) does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative (No Development), the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. A summary comparison of the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives and potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the project is provided in Tables A-1 and A-2, below. Based on this comparison, Alternative 2 (Reduced Project Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 fails to meet certain project objectives as shown in Tales A-1. TABLE A-1 ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Alt. 1: No Project Alt. 2: Alternative Reduced Alt.3: (No Project Retail Use Project Objectives Development) Alternative Alternative Plan and implement No Yes Yes a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. Provide for high No Yes Yes quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serves the needs of the City residents. Create job growth No Yes Yes for the local economy. To adequately serve No No No the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. To maximize Audi's No No No market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. To construct a high- No Yes Yes end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. TABLE A-2 IMPACT SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT Alternative Alternative Alternative Potential 1: No 2: 3: Project Project Reduced Impacts Alternative Project Retail Use Aesthetics Fewer Similar Increased Air Quality Fewer Fewer Increased GHG Emissions/ Fewer Fewer Increased Climate Change Noise Fewer Fewer Increased Biological Fewer Similar Similar Resources Traffic Fewer Fewer Increased Hydrology and Water Fewer Fewer Increased Quality D. The Project As Proposed 1. Summary of Project The Project involves the development of an Audi dealership on the site and is described in detail in the Supplemental EIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final Supplemental EIR and has compared them with those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, . economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the Project objectives. More specifically, the Project as proposed is consistent with the uses prescribed to the site in the Harveston Specific Plan while meeting each of the Project objectives. The Project is the only proposal that meets the objective to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi's market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. Furthermore, each of the Project's effects on the environment that were identified in the Supplemental EIR can be adequately mitigated to less than significant levels. If the proposed Project is not built, it is possible that another development could be proposed for the site at a greater density that would have increased effects on the environment. For these reasons, the City Council selects the Project as proposed. Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program EXHIBIT B AUDI OF TEMECULA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Aesthetics Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1:The following measures to reduce Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of light and glare are required' Construction 1 Temecula Temecula Temecula • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain Post-Construction Building Official project approval "sharp cut-off"fixtures,and shall be fitted with flat glass and or other and field internal and external shielding."Sharp cut-off'fixtures are Designee verification and designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize sign-off by City light spillover and create little-to-no glare.This fixture of Temecula contains a sharp cut-off to reduce waste light.The lamp is deeply recessed within the reflector to eliminate glare. • The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site:no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle • The applicant shall incorporate step-down lighting into the project to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Director.The step-down lighting shall occur each evening between the following intervals:6.00 P.M.,7-30 P.M.and 10:30 P M. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open,closing,and night light/security lighting schemes.All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays • Through the design review process.the applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping to Moot(light sources and reflection from cars. Well-placed landscaping would reduce glare from the cars in the parking lot and from metal/glass building surfaces,and help to shield nighttime security lighting from adjacent roadway systems • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project- specific development within the project area that includes outdoor lighting,the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Director.The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No.655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include. Avoi of Temecula MMRP ESA)150165 • September 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program AUDI OF TEMECULA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks but not be limited to,the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield. o A map showing all lamp locations,orientations.and intensities, including security,roadway,and task lighting: o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield, o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint,expressed as lumens per acre,and o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used,especially for security lighting • The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No.655. • In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory,all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps;step- down lighting techniques,and shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination. The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited.The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non- mirrored glass,painted metal panels and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM-B10-1:Impacts to raptors and other Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of • migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of the Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit following measure: Qualified and sign-off by • A pre-construction clearance survey for active nests of Biologist City of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a Temecula qualified biologist who is knowledgeable in the nesting requirements of the avian species in the region.The survey shall occur no more than 3 days prior to any construction or ground-disturbing activities If active nest(s)(with eggs or fiettglin•s)are identified within the A.d d Terin;�a __.. 2 _-- ESA,150189 WARP SepremWr 2015 AUDI OF TEMECULA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks project site,(CDFW for state listed species,species of special concern,and MSHCP covered species:USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species)they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged(matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own) An appropriate buffer from construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest is no longer considered active.as determined by a qualified biologist. On-site monitoring during construction by a biological monitor may also be required based on sensitivity of the species and proximity of the nest to construction activities. If no active nests are identified,construction may commence. Mitigation Measure MM-BlO-2:Impacts to burrowing owl shall be Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of avoided through implementation of the following measure: Temecula Temecula grading permit • Due to the project site's location within a burrowing owl Qualified and sign-off by Biologist City of survey area and presence of suitable habitat on the Temecula project site(regardless of the findings of the focused burrowing owl survey),a 30-day pre-construction survey for burrowing owl is required in accordance with the MSHCP. The one-day survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all suitable habitat areas on the protect site and study area,and will focus on areas previously identified during the focused surveys as containing suitable habitat and potentially suitable burrows If no burrowing owls are observed construction may commence. If burrowing owls are observed the RCA and/or City will be notified and additional measures, such as avoidance or installation of exclusion devices to evict the owls,will be required to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP Since burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSCHP,burrowing owls(less than 3 pairs)that occupy the site may be evicted from their burrows and allowed to move offsite. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure MM-HYD•1:Prior to issuance of a grading Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of rener is --- __ 3 ESA 1 150189 NOAH September All Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program AUDI OF TEMECULA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks permit,a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil Temecula ' Temecula grading permit engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan Building Official and sign-off by check in accordance with City,Riverside County and engineering or other City of standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities(to Designee Temecula mitigate the 100-year storm event)from the development of this site and upstream of the site It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite,public or private,drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project Noise Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1:The applicant shall implement a Construction City of City of Issuance of silent paging system throughout the project to eliminate loudspeaker Temecula Temecula Certificate of paging noise. Building Official Occupancy by or other City of Designee I Temecula Audi of Temecula - 4 -.. --- WARP ESA/750169 September 2015