HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-053 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 03-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD WIDENING AND MEDIAN
MODIFICATIONS EAST OF YNEZ ROAD PROJECT PW00-20
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find,
determine and declare that:
A. A project is proposed by the City to construct a right turn lane form west-
bound Rancho California Road to north-bound Ynez Road and to modify the raised medians
between Ynez Road and Via Las Colinas. The right turn lane portion of the project will include
the relocation of traffic signal control devices, curb & gutter and sidewalks between the Ynez
Road and the first Rancho California Road driveway east of Ynez Road. The proposed right
turn lane will expedite right turn traffic through the intersection and facilitate moms efficient
through-traffic access to the freeway. The median improvements will consist of the closing two
median openings along Rancho California Road adjacent to the Town Center Plaza. The two
openings are located at the Claim Jumper Restaurant and Target Store driveway entrances
(immediately west and east of the signalized intersection at Town Center Drive, respectively).
The openings airs being closed in order to eliminate traffic collisions caused by left-turn
movements into the plaza and the need for longer left-turn pockets at the 3 signalized
intersections.
B. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
City staff prepared an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment No. EA-68) of the potential
environmental effects of the proposed project. Based on the findings contained in that Study,
staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant
impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of the Initial
Study and Negative Declaration are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by
reference. Under separate review it was determined that construction of the median portion of
the project was exempt from environmental assessment.
C. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period
and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration as required by law and copies of the
documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department
of Community Development, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Ca.
92589.
D. The City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before
it, finds that: (1) The Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) theirs is
no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3)
the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.
Section 2. Based on these findings set forth in Section 1., the City Council
hereby adopts the Negative Declaration prepared for the Project.
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-53 1
Section 3. The Director of Community Development shall file a Notice of
Determination in the offices of the County Clerk of the County of Riverside in connection with
the approval of the Negative Declaration.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 13th day of May, 2003.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 03-53 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on this 13th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None
rC
k
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-53 2
City of Tem( lla
Planning Department
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Environmental Assessment No. EA-80 (Widening of Rancho California
Road - PW 00-20)
City of Temecula
Rancho California Road east of Ynez Road in the City of Temecula, County
of Riverside, California.
The construction of a right turn lane from west-bound Rancho California
Road to north-bound Ynez Road. The project includes the relocation of
drainage facilities, curb and gutter, sidewalks, streetlights and traffic control
devices. The project will also include the construction of a small retaining
wail and the acquisition of approximately 4,000 square feet of additional
right-of-way.
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based
upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this
project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment.
As a result, the City Council intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project on April 24, 2001.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is 03-19-2001 to 4-14-2001. Written
comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the
following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City Hall is located
at 43200 Business Park Drive.
~x The Local Newspaper.
_ Posting the Site.
_ Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact David
Hogan, Senio(~ at (909~(0,~4~100.
Prepared by: \[ ~ ~ )..~t_._._._._._.__~....._ ~2>/~x4~/~ ["~Ar,., ~,~¢,,~'
' (Signature) ' 0 (Name and Title)
R:\EA\EaS0\Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration.doc
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Agency DistribUtion List
PROJECT: Environmental Assessment No. EA-80 (Widening of ~ancho California Road)
DISTRIBUTION DATE:
3/16/2001 CASE PLANNER: David Hogan
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety ................................ ( )
Fire Department .................................. ( )
Police Department ............................... ( )
Parks & Recreation (TCSD) ................... ( )
Planning, Advance ............................... ( )
Public Works ..................................... ( )
............ ()
STATE:
Caltrans ............................................
Fish & Game .....................................
Mines & Geology ................................ ,
Regional Water Quality Control Bd ..........
State Clearinghouse ..............................
State Clearinghouse (10 Copies) ..............
Water Resources .................................
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers ...................... (
Fish and Wildlife Service ...................... (
CITY OF MURRIETA: ~
Planning ............................................ ( )
........... ( )
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Airport Land Use Commission ................. ( )
Engineer ............................................ ( )
Flood Control ..................................... ( )
Health Department ............................... ( )
Parks and Recreation ............................. ( )
Planning Department ............................. ( )
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ..... ( )
Riverside Transit Agency ...................... (..)
........... ( )
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District .............. (x)
Inland Valley Cablevision ....................... (x)
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ....... (x)
Southern California Gas ......................... (x)
Southern California Edison ..................... (x)
Temecula Valley School District ............... ( )
Metropolitan Water District .................... ( )
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District ............. (..)
Western Riverside COG ........................ (..)
.......... ()
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation .................. (..)
Eastern Information Center ..................... ( )
Local Agency Formation Corem ............... ( )
RCTC .............................................. ( )
Homeowners' Association ..................... (..)
R:[EA\Ea80\Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration.doc
2
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
I Environmental Assessment No. EA-60 - Rancho California Road
Widening (PW00-20)
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033,
Temecula, CA 92589-9033 -
David Hogan, Senior Planner
(909) 694-6400
Rancho California Road east of Ynez Road in the City of Temecula,
County of Riverside, California.
City of Temecula
Aderial Roadway (4-lane with raised median) and
Community Commercial
Community Commercial
The construction of a right turn lane from west-bound Rancho
California Road to north-bound Ynez Road. The project includes the
relocation of drainage facilities, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street
lights and traffic control devices. The project will also include the
construction of a small retaining wall and the acquisition of
approximately 4,000 square feet of additional right-of-way. (Public
Works Project PW 00-20.)
Landscaped areas for developed commercial properties.
No outside agency permits are required.
Location Map
R:\EA\EaSO\lnitial Environmental Study.doc
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving ,a...t least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages...,
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
~/ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
I find that the ~p, roposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by. mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets if the effect is a potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
I find that the proposed project WOULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and
that the approva of a CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION is appropriate.
Signature
David Hogan
Printed name
R:~EA\EaS0\lnitlal Environmental Study.doc
2
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incoq)orated Impact Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? ~/
b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or ~
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental
effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ~
natural community conservation plan?
Comments:
The proposed road widening will not physically divide an established community, conflict with
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, and does not conflict with any applicable habitat plans.
The proposed roadway improvements ara also consistent with the City's General Plan. As a result, no
significant impacts are expected to occur.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Untess Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signtiicant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact ~mpact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either q
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace subStantial numbers of existing housing, ,~
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ~/
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
The proposed road widening will not displace any housing units or local residents. The widening is also
not expected to induce substantial population growth in the area. The project is intended to meet
current infrastructure needs. As a result, no significant impacts are expected to occur.
R:\EA'~_a80~lnitial Environmental Study.doc
3
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Potent[arly
Potential;y Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation SrgnifiCant No
Issues and Su~3~oding Infonrnation Sources Impact Incorporated impact Impact
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial ~/
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) 'Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on ~/
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to ~
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ~/
iii)seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ~/
iv) Landsli'des? ~/
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ~/
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ~/
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B ~/
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of ~/
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
The proposed road widening will not expose people or property to any significant impacts or effects
caused by geology or soils. Any improvements will be constructed to meet the appropriate building and
safety standards. As a result, no significant impact effects are expected to occur.
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
R~ten~!~y I -
; P0t~fiaiiy sigr~cant uhlees Less Than
Sig~ifiCant ~ti0n SignifiCant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources impact I~rpOrated Impact Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ~/
requirements?
b. SubStantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ~/
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
R:~EA~Ea80'dnitial Environmental Study.doc
4
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Potentially
Potanfially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
i. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
· SubStantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
ii Create Or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise sUbstantially degrade water quality?
· Place housing within a lO0~year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or/Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or Structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Comments:
The proposed road widening will not effect water quality or existing water courses. However the project
may result in a small incremental increase in runoff volumes because of the increased paved surface.
The proposed road widening will not effect hydrology or water quality standards beyond current
roadway runoff levels. The project will not change the direction of surface or ground water flows. The
widening will not expose people or property to any significant impacts or effects caused by flooding. As
a result, no significant impact effects are expected to occur.
AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
II to an existing or projected air qua!ity violation?
Impaq, if~pact ~
R:~EA\Ea80\lnitial Environmental Study.doc
5
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues end Supix)rfing Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ~
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ~/
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ~/
of people?
Comments:
The proposed road widening will not impact or adversely effect air quality. Some limited local
improvement in air quality may result from increased traffic flow and reduced congestion along Rancho
California Road. As a result, no significant impact effects are expected to occur.
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Potenfially
Potenfially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant M[tigafion Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
R:~F_A~=a80~Jnitial Environmental Study.doc
6
Comments:
The proposed road widening will not adversely impact vehicular circulation in this area. The project is
expected to improve vehicular circulation and emergency access by adding a turn lane that will allow a
more efficient turning movement. These improvements are not expected to attract additional vehicle
trips to this area. However, the additional widening may further impact the movements of pedestrians
through this area by increasing the width of the road sudace to be crossed. The installation of this lane
may also further impact the use of this area by bicyclists by making travel along this segment of
Rancho California Road either more difficult or by feeling less safe to use. As a result, no significant
impact effects are expected to occur.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ~/
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ~/
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the l
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected ~/
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ~/
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ~/
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat ~/
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, er state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
7.all. The proposed road widening will net significantly affect important biologic resources. The areas of
expansion are currently occupied with existing sidewalks and commercial landscaping. No significant impacts
are anticipated.
R:~_ALEa8Ognttlal Environmental Study.doc
7
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Potenfially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues and Supporting Intonnation Sources
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resoume that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
The proposed widening entails the use of a small increment of commonly used construction materials.
In addition, this widening will not reduce locally important mineral resources. As a result, no effects are
expected from this project.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact
. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
· Crate a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the rdect area?
'g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
R:\EA~Ea80~lnitial Environmental Study.doc
8
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potenfiaily
Significant UnJess
Mitigation
Incorpomted
Comments:
The widening of Rancho California Road will not expose area residents to any hazardous or materials
not commonly transported through this area and found in the adjacent neighborhoods. The project site
is not located within the safety area for any public or private airports. As a result, no impacts are
expected from this project.
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Potentially
Potenfially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Issues and Suppo~ng Information Sources Impact incorporated Impact Impact
i Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of ~/
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ,/
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
· A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ~/
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ~/
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ~/
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ~/
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
10.all.
Some additional construction-related noise is expected to occur while the project is being constructed.
However, these impacts will be of relatively short duration and will largely be confined to daylight hours.
There are no residential land uses adjacent to this project location. Future build-out noise levels were
addressed in the Noise Element of the adopted General Plan. As a result, the environmental analysis
in the General Plan addressed the impacts on the current residents of this area. Finally, traffic volumes
on Rancho California Road have increased over time as previously approved projects have been
constructed and occupied. This increase in vehicle noise has occurred even without any additional
Improvements in this area. The use of Rancho California Road by residents and visitors will continue
increase future road noise levels even without these improvements. The project does not include an
R:~,~Ea80~lnitial Environmental Study. doc
airport component and could not expose people to increased aircraft noise. As a result, not impacts are
expected.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered Government services In any of the following areas:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Untess Less Than
Significant Miifgation Significant NO
issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated hapact Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
,
b. Fire protection.
c. Police protection?
d. Schools?
e. Parks?
f. Other public facilities?
Comments:
11.all. The proposed widening of Rancho California Road will not affect the demand for, or adversely effect,
public services. This project may result in a small incremental increase in road maintenance costs;
however, a portion of this project represents current City road maintenance functions. As a result, no
effects are expected from this project.
12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
i Potentially
PotentiallysigNifcant Unless Less Than
Sign~ifidant Mitigation Significant NO
Issues and Supporting Infom3aifon Sources impact Incorpo~'ated Impact Impact
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ~/
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or ~
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water ~/
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ~/
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
__ new or ex anded entitlements needed? ....
R:~EA~Ea80~lnitlal Environmental Study.doc
10
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Suppo~ling Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ~/
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to q
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ~/
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
12.a11. The proposed widening of Rancho California Road will not affect public utilities or service systems. The
project is expected to tie into and to use the existing storm runoff system serving this area. As a result,
no effects are expected from this project.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitiga~on Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Int,oact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ~/
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ~/
limited tO, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building
within a state scenic highway?
c. SUbstantially degrade the existing visual character or q
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ~/
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
13.a11. The proposed widening of Rancho California Road will not noticeably affect current views or vistas in
this area. Also, Rancho California Road has not been designated as a scenic roadway. As a result, no
effects are expected from this project.
R:~,VEs80~lnitlal Environmental Study.doc
11
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signiticant No
Issues and Supporting !nfonnation Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ~/
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ~
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ~
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred ~/
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
14.a11. The roadway and shoulder areas have been extensively graded and modified over the years and the
discovery of cultural resources is not expected occur in such highly disturbed soil conditions. Since the
General Plan identifies the area as archaeologically sensitive area, a qualified archeologist shall be
present if cultural resources are detected during the grading operations. As a result, no impacts are
anticipated.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant UnleSS Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing ~/
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require! ~/
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Comments:
15.all The proposed widening of Rancho California Road will not affect the demand for, or adversely effect,
recreational facilities. As a result, no effects are expected from this project.
R:~EA~Ea80~lnltial Environmental Study.doc
12
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supporang Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ~/
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually ,,/
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will ~
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. Earl.ier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
I whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address s te-specific conditions for the project.
SOURCES
1,
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Er~vironmental Impact Report.
R:',E.A~a80~Jnittal Environmental Study.doc
13
DATE:
TO:
MEE~NG OF:
AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
MINUTE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2003
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works / Cily Engineer
May 13, 2003
Item No. 29
Rancho California Road Widening and Median Modifications East of Ynez
Road - Project No. PW00-20 - Environmental Assessment and
authorization to solicit bids
The motion was made by Councilmember Comerchero, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern
Naggar, to approve staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
29.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 03-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A NEGAT
_FOR THE RANCHO CALIFO,,-, .... I_V_E DECLARATION
29.2 Approve the Project Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit bids for the Rancho California Road Widening and
Median Modifications east of Ynez Road - Project No. PW00-20
29.3 Approve the Project Plans and Specifications
Public Works to solicit bids for the Rancho California Road Widening and
and authorize the Department of
Median Modifications East of Ynez Road, Project No. PW00-20.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNClLMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pm.It, Roberts, Stone
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNClLMEMBERS: None