HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-088 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 02-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR PA00-
0138, PA00-0139, PA00-0140 AND PA00-0152, GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST
OF COSMIC ROAD AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD
INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO (S). 944-290-01 2, 013, AND 014.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
declare that:
The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
MJW Property Group filed Planning Application Nos. PA00-0138, General
Plan Amendment, PA00-0139, Zone Change, PA00-0140, Development
Plan, and PA00-0152, Tentative Parcel Map, for the property consisting of
approximately 23 acres and generally located south of Rancho California
Road, west of Cosmic Road and east of the Moraga Road intersection of
Rancho California Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 944-290-01 2,
013, AND 014 ("Project").
The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental
review was conducted as required by law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act.
The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed
public hearing on February 20, 2002 to consider the applications for the
Project and environmental review.
Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002-003 recommending
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Plan for the Project, a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map.
On September 17, 2002 and October 8, 2002, the City Council of the City
of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which
time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did
address the City Council on these matters.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-88 1
Section 2. The City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project and all comments received regarding the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and, based on the whole record before
it, finds, determines and declares that:
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's
local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential
environmental effects of the proposed Project. Based upon the findings
contained in that Study, City staff determined that there was no
substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the
environment and a Mitigated 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.
Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period
and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated 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.
The City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were discussed at a
public hearing of the City Council held on September 17, 2002 and
October 8, 2002.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with
CEQA
There is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will
have a significant effect on the environment.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment
and analysis of the City Council.
The Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared in accordance with law.
Section 3.
Negative Declaration
Project.
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Mitigated
for the Project and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a Notice of
Determination describing the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program by the City Council in the Offices of the County Clerk of the County of
Riverside in accordance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-88 2
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jo C
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 02-88 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-88 3
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title Temecula Village Development
Lead Agency Name and City of Temecula
Address P.O. Box 9033,
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner
Number (909) 694-6400
Project Location The south side of Rancho Califomia Road, approximately 200 feet west of
the intersection of Rancho California Road and Cosmic Drive. Unsectioned
land within T8S, R3W, located on the USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle,
San Bemardino Base and Meridian. (APN it 944-290-012, 013, 014)
Project Sponsor's Name and TV Development, LP
Address c/o Markham Development Management Group, thc.
41750 Winchester Road, Suite N
Temecula, CA 92590
General Plan Designation Professional Office (12.74 acres)
Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units/acre) (10.23 acres)
Zoning Same as General Plan
Description ol' Project The Project consists of the following planning applications:
1. PA00-0138 proposes a General Plan Amendment which will reorient the
current north / south boundaries of (PO) Professional Office (12.74 acres)
and (M) Medium Density (10.23 acres) to an east / west orientation of 7.71
acres of (PO) Professional Office and 15.26 acres of (M) Medium Density.
2. PA00-0139 proposes a Zoning Amendment which overlays the current
zoning of (PO) Professional Office and (M) Medium Density with a mixed-
use office/retail (PDO-5) Planned Development Overlay,
3. PA00-0152 proposes a Tentative Parcel Map subdividing the current
three parcels, which are a portion of lot 24 of Tract 3334, into 8 individual
parcels.
4. PA00-0140 proposes to construct 160 attached single-family residential
units on approximately 15.26 acres. The apartment buildings will consist of
two-story structures with stucco exteriors consisting of simple horizontal or
gabled parapets. The project also proposes 71,100 square foot of single.
story and two-story office/retail space on approximately 7.71 acres. Access
to the proiect site will be from Rancho California Road.
Surrounding Land Uses and Rancho Califomia Road serves as the north boundary ot the project site,
SeUIng with commercial and multi-family development located on the north side of
the mad. Single-family residential uses are located to the east and south.
Undeveloped open area, approved by the City for multi-family residential
use is located to the west,
Other pubic agencies whose The only other agency approval that may be required is an incidental take
approval is required permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No stream channels
are located on this ridge located south of Rancho California Road, therefore
an Army Corps 404 Permit or Department of Fish and Game 1603
Agreement appears not to be required. No Regional Board approvals are
required.
Village ol Temecula!l niti~ Study.~
Environmental Factors PotenUally Affected
The environmental factom checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by' the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use Planning X Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Population and Housing Noise
~( Geology and Soils Public Services
Water Utilities and Service Systems
Air Quality Aesthetics
Transportation/Cimulation X Cultural Resoumes
;[ Biological Resoumes Recreation
Energy and Mineral 'Resoumes Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
(To be completed bythe lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
bythe 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 requirod
I find that the proposed project MAY have a 'potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, 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.
t 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.
Pdnted Name: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner For: City of Temecula
FE~D P~2000~00-0140 Village of Temecuta~lniflal Study. df _.
1, LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
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:
1.a
1.b
1.e
The project site is surrounded with urban/suburban development. Residential uses exist to the south and
east; multi-family residential development has been approved on the vacant property located immediately
to the west; and commemial development exists to the north of Rancho California Road which is one of
the major east-west arterials in the City of Temecula. The construction and occupancy of 160 residential
units and 71,100 square feet of office/retail on this approximate 22.97-acre property will be an urban infill
development project. The type of project proposed and the location of the project eliminate any possibility
of causing adverse impact from physically dividing an established community.
Based on the site's medium density residential and professional office designations, and the infill
character of the project site, the proposed Temecula Village project is consistent with the village center
and planned development overlay concepts presented in the General Plan and Development Code. The
proposed project does not pose any significant adverse land use impacts with implementation of required
mitigation. The project requires the approval of a General Plan Amendment and a Change of Zone.
Potential mitigation for other issues is discussed in the appropriate sections of this Initial Study. No
mitigation is required for land use issues beyond those that are already included in the proposed project
Planned Development Overlay.
The project 'site constitutes an island of undeveloped property that is surrounded on all sides by urban
and suburban development. The site does contain disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat, but it is
not identified in the City General Plan or any other agency plans as part of a habitat conservation plan or
a natural community conservation plan. Converting the properly to suburban uses comparable to that
surrounding the site will require mitigation through acquisition of an incidental take permit from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, but discussions with the Service biologists indicate that the appropriate solution
for this site is not to retain it as permanent habitat due to the surrounding level of development. If
mitigation is required based on the presence of the California Gnatcatcher, the Service Staff indicates that
it should be acquired offsite at a location determined suitable by the Service (See Biological Resources
Section).
2' POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (roi' example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
2.a
The City General Plan designated a total of 772 acres of medium density residential land use. The
proposed project will convert -15.26 acres of this designati(~n to 160 apartment units. At an occupancy
rate of 2.83 persons per unit, the total population lhat will occupy this project at full occupancy is forecast
to be 453 persons. However, as Temecula Village is an infill project where many service needs of
residents are provided onsite, it is not forecast to induce'populatio~ growth that will exceed the capacity of
roads, utilities, and other infrastructure anticipated in the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed
office/retail uses on site are only approximately two-thirds of the minimum. FAR square footage
anticipated in the General Plan for this site (.21 cOmpared to a minimum of .3), and 20% of the maximum
FAR (.21 compared to the maximum FAR of 1.0). Based on this evaluation, the proposed project is. not
forecast to cause significant growth within the City of Temecula.
2.b
The project site is presently unoccupied and the proposed project has no potential to displace any
existing housing. 'The project will provide critically needed apartment housing units for the City, and
equally important, the adjacent professional and commemial development can reduce the overall trip
· generation by allowing pedestrian trips to replace vehicle trips.
2.C
The project site is presently unoccupied and the proposed project has no potential to displace any
existing population. The project provides essential rental housing that will serve a portion of the City's
residents which relies upon this type of housing which is in very short supply within the City and
surrounding area
No mitigation is required.
R:'~D 1:~2000~00-0140 V'dlage of Temecuta~lnitial Study.~
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS, Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X
most recent Alquist-Pdolo 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? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss Of topsoil? X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X
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 X
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?.
e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of X
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
3.a
A detailed description of the City's geology and soils is contained in Chapter 4.1 of the City's General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR). According to the GPEIR, the City of Temecula'is in Ground
shaking Zone II, which will experience moderate to intense ground shaking in the event of a major
regional earthquake. Geologic mitigation measure 5 is identified in Section 4.1.3 of the GPEIR and it' is
deemed adequate to reduce potential ground shaking impacts to a level of no significance. No additionai
mitigation is required.
A review of the City's Fault Hazard Zones in the General Plan (Figure 7-1) indicates that the project site is
not'located within a fault hazard zone and it has a very Iow probability of being exposed to fault rupture.
A review of the City's Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazards in the General Plan (Figure 7-2) indicates that the
project site is not located within a zone of potential subsidence or liquefaction. The proposed project has
a very Iow probability of being exposed to these geologic hazards.
Although the project site is located on a Iow ridge, no landslides were observed on the property proposed
for development. A geotechnical investigation by CHJ Incorporated reached this same conclusion. A
copy of this geotechnical study is available at the City Planning Department office for review if desired.
The lack of observed landslides, the Iow vertical relief of the site, and the shallow slopes would indicate a ·
Iow potential for being exposed to significant landslide hazards on this project site.
3.b
Development of the project site will expose it to potential erosion and downstream sedimentation. The
General Plan requires mitigation for project to control erosion. Further, specific requirements have been
established under the state-wide NPDES program that requires every project to implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction and over the long-term. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) are identified in the SWPPP to control erosion on a site and any sedimentation
R:~D P~2000~0-0140 Village of Temecula~Jnitial Study. rtl
generated by disturbing the site for development. Mitigation is required to control potential erosion and
sedimentation. The following standard City condition of approval shall be implemented.
3.b. 1
The SWPPP prepared for this project shall implement BMPs identified in the County's
Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the performance standard that must be
met is to minimize erosion on the site in accordance with DAMP BMPs and to contain all
eroded sediment on the project site.
3.c
As noted under issue 3.a, the project site' has a minimal potential for any instability related to subsidence,
liquefaction, or landslides.
3.d
Based on a review of the General Plan, the Friant-Lodo-Escondido Association underlies the site and it
has no potential to be expansive or create hazards related to expansive soils.
3.e
The project site will be served by a sewer collection system so there is no potential for the site to have
adverse impacts related to use of subsurface wastewater disposal systems.
Implementation of mitigation measure it5 (General Plan) in the General Plan for ground shaking impacts and
measure 3.b.1 for erosion/sedimentation impacts will reduce the only potentially significant geology and soil
impacts to a level of no significance.
4o HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a Iowedng 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)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
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 offsite?
e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional soumes of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?. X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
.map?
h. ' Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or. structures to a significant risk of loss, X .
njury or death nvo v ng f o.oding, inc uding f ooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Comments:
4,a
The proposed project would permit development of 160 multi-family residential dwelling units and 71,100
sq. ft. of office/retail space. This type of development does not generally generate any wastewater, other
than domestic or municipal, which will require treatment or waste discharge requirements. No water
quality standards are forecast to be violated by implementing the proposed project. Wastewater will be
delivered to the regional treatment plant for treatment under waste discharge requirements established by
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. During construction and occupancy
implementation of BMPs as outlined In Supplement A of the Riverside County DAMP will be implemented
which will control pollution to a level of no significance. See mitigation measure 3.b.l.(See Condition Of
Approval, 3.b.1)
4.b
The project site is located on a ridge, which has no potential to serve as a recharge location for surface
runoff. Therefore, the project has no potential to adversely interfere with groundwater recharge. The
proposed project does not include any extraction of groundwater, so no adverse direct impact can result
from implementing the proposed project. The GPEIR addresses water demand from development in the
City of Temecula, including 772 acres of medium density residential uses and 520 acres professional
FLeD P',2000'~00-0140 Village of Temecula~Jnitial St udy.r~
4.C
4.d
4.e
4.f
4.g
4.h
4.i-j
office uses. Rancho California Water Oistdct has confirmed in the "will serve" letter dated May 17, 2000
that water will be available upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assign water
rights. The GPEIR concludes that the City's two purveyors can meet cumulative water demand within the
City without having a significant adverse impact on the environment, including depletion of the areas
groundwater supplies. The proposed development increases the number of dwelling units anticipated in
the General Plan by 37 and increases demand for residential uses. However, the decrease in
commercial/office acreage (5.03) and actual proposed commercial/office square footage (71,100 square
feet compared to a permissible a range of between 100,754 and 335,000 square feet under the
applicable Floor Area Ratio (FAR)), and consequent decrease in water demand for commercial/office
uses, decreases water demand more than the additional 37 residences will increase demand. Therefore,
the proposed project will not contribute to a significant cumulative, indirect adverse impact on the area
groundwater aquifers.
The project site presently drains to existing storm drains in Rancho Calitomia Road and at the southwest
comer of the project site. From them runoff enters the regional drainage system, which terminates in
Murrieta Creek and ultimately the Santa Margarita River. The existing drainage pattern will be retained
after project development. Erosion and siltation issues are addressed in previous discussions under
geology and hydrology. A preliminary drainage/hydrology study prepared by engineers of Markham
Development Management Group, Inc. verifies that the existing drainage system is adequate to accept
the volume project runoff from the developed site without causing any significant adverse downstream
impacts.
As noted in 4.c above, the project would not alter the existing site or area drainage system. It will
increase runoff as a result of increasing the impervious surface on the project site, but the City imposes
standard conditions to detain surface runoff on the property to ensure that the maximum'runoff volume
from the site is not be significantly increased. NO adverse impacts are forecast to affect propei'ties
downstream of the site from developing the project as proposed.
Please refer to the discussion under 4.d above.
Please refer to the discussion under 4.a above.
The project site is located on a ridge and is not located in the vicinity Of any identified 100-year flood.
hazard area. No potential for exposure to significant flood hazards will occur from developing the project
site as proposed.
The project site is located on a ridge and is not located in the vicinity of any identified dam inundation
flood hazard area. No potential for exposure to significant flood hazards will occur from develop!ng the
project site as proposed.
.Since the project is not near any water body and is located on a ridge, no potential exists for the site to be
adversely impacted by inundation from seiche, tsunami, or muciflow.
R.AD P~2000~00-0140 Village of Temecul~lnitial Study.rll
5. ' AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management er air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determthations.
Would the pro~ect:
Issues lad Supp~ In~aema~:m Saume~ P~ P~mltl~ Less 311an NO
S~rr~ar~ ~ S~gnlaca~ ~eact
a, Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable x
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially x
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any x
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 x
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a sul~stantial number x
of people?
Comments:
5.a
The land use designations will vary somewhat from that which is contained in the City's General Plan. A
total of 37 additional multifamily residential units are being proposed on the project site than would be
permitted under the existing land use designations. In addition, the amount of commercial development
has been reduced on the project site in order to create a pedestrian scale commercial/office development.
The proposed project modification is of such a small scale and meets the objective of providing adequate
multifamily housing adjacent to a commercial and job generating development that the overall reduction in
trip generation and vehicle miles traveled will be fully consistent with SCAG's Regional Comprehensive
Plan and Guide (RCPG) and the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Development of the
project site with mitigation measures as outlined in the SCAQMD "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" will not
conflict with any applicable air quality plan,
5.b
Air quality within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB)is improving, and development of the proposed
project will be in full conformance with the RCPG and AQMP because it contains all of the elements
identified in these plants to minimize trip generation and vehicle miles traveled. The proposed project's
development will ensure that the emissions will .be minimized to the maximum extent possible and will
contribute to the regional programs being implemented to ensure that air quality emissions in the SoCAB
will ultimately be brought within the carrying capacity of the Basin,
5.C
The CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains a screening table for operations and construction impacts.
Under Table 6-2 of the Handbook, the threshold for potential cumulative significant air emissions is 261
apartment units. The comparable threshold for development of office and commercial development is
96,221 square feet and 50,000 square feet respectively. The project proposes 36,000 square feet of
office space and about 35,100 square feet of commercial development, including an -9,600 square foot
day care center. The proposed project falls below these thresholds and therefore, this project does not
have a potential to cause significant air emissions within the basin during operation.
Regarding construction (refer to Table 6-3 in the Handbook), the total area to be graded is approximately
-23 acres, which will occur over a period of one to two months. The threshold for significant grading air
quality impacts is 177 acres quarterly;, therefore, the preposod project falls below these thresholds.
Assuming. an average of 2,000 square feet for each unit, the total gross floor area (GFA) for the
mulfifamily project is 320,000 square feet of GFA which is also below the threshold of significance for
apartments (1,410,000 GFA) and the 71,1000 square foot commercial area falls well below the 975,000
GFA in Table 6-3 of the Handbook. Based on these comparisons, the proposed project will not cause or
contribute to cumulative significant increases in air emissions. To prevent nuisance fugitive dust standard
erosion/dust control measures are required as conditions of grading and building permits.
R:~D Pt2000~(X~O 140 V'dlage of Temecula~lnitlai Study.~
5.d
5.e
None of the activities at the project site (multifamily residences or the commemial/office uses) have a
potential to generate significant volumes of pollutants or create substantial pollutant concentrations that
could harm sensitive receptors.
None of the activities at the project site have a potential to generate significant odors or create substantial
odor concentrations that could harm sensitive receptors.
6. TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X
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 ntersections?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X
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 X
; an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety dsks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs · X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Comments:
6.a
A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula
Village Development) for a project with a total of 454 single family units and a mixed-use retail and
commercial village center on the project site and an adjacent -21 acre pamel to the west. This study was
revised and updated in August 2000. The proposed project consists of 160 apartment units and 71,100
square feet of office/retail use, which fall within the scope of-the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The
proposed project is an infill development. The TIA concluded the following regarding the area cimulation
system impacts: "Under both year 2001 With and Without Project traffic conditions, the intersections of
Rancho California Road at the 1-15 Southbound Ramps, 1:15 Northbound Ramps and Ynez Road are'
projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., worse than LOS D) during the PM peak
hour...With roadway improvements planned at these' intersections, and with the opening of Overland
Drive overpass...the three intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, for both the Year
2001 Without Project and With Project traffic conditions. These improvements are now in place.
Consequently, WSA does not propose any specific measures to mitigate project traffic impacts." "The
developer will be responsible for payment of development impact fees in accordance with the fee.
schedule established by the City. Prior to project opening, the City may negotiate an agreement with the
developer to implement off-site improvements in exchange for fee credits." Based on the data contained
in the TIA, the proposed project can be implemented without causing any significant adverse impacts to
the circulation system.
6.b Please refer to the discussion in 6.a above.
6.c .The project site is not located near any airport and has no potential to adversely impact any air traffic
patterns.
6.d
Based on the TIA, the proposed project circulation system improvements will not cause any roadway
hazards.
6.e Emergency access to the project site will be via Rancho Califomia Road on the north and two private
roads, one extending south from Rancho California Road along the west side of the proposed project and
another road entering the shopping center. These two roads will provide adequate emergency access.
R:'~D I:~o000~00-0140 Village of Temecula~lnltlal Study.~
6.f
6.g
The applicant has provided adequate parking spaces to meet the City's Development Code requirements
in both the commemial/office (Sub areas A and B) and multifamily development (Sub area C) areas.
The project will be conditioned to provide alternative transportation facilities consistent with the mad
improvements serving the project site and provides a bus bay and seating with shelter designed to be
used as a transit stop No conflict or adverse impact to adopted alternative transportation policies, plans
or programs is forecast to occur from implementing the proposed projecL
FL'~D P~140 Village of Temecula~nitlal Sllxly.~
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
~ .~g~,cam s~g~aca~t ~rmect
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X
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 X
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game Or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X
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 X
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 X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan. or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
7.a
The letter from United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service dated May 31,200'0,
recommends that focused surveys occur within suitable habitat on site prior to any ground disturbing
activities. According to the Biological Survey, the project site COntains a mix of coastal sage scrub (CSS),
ruderal/disturbed lands and non-native bees. Biological surveys were prepared for the project site. No
sensitive plants and no Quino Checkerspot Butterflies (QCB) were identified on the property, but a pair
Calilornia Gnatcatchers (CAGN) were identified. Therefore, based on the current survey, an incidental
take permit will need to be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS). Based on
initial discussions with the Service's Staff, the preference is for offsite mitigation at a 3:1 ratio for CSS and
a 1:1 ratio for the disturbed grassland, with appropriate endowments and protection of resoumes at the
mitigation site. Therefore, the following mitigation measure will be implemented.
7.a. 1
The project developer shall acquire compensatory mitigation acreage off the project site
as outlined above for the -23 acre parcel. Pdor to grading the project site, the developer
shall provide the City with a copy of the incidental take permit issued for the proposed
development.
7.b
The project site does not contain any waters of the United States, riparian or wetland resources.
Therefore, development of the proposed project cannot adversely impact such resources.
7.c Please refer to the discussion in 7.c above.
Pc~D F~000~00-0140 V'diage of Temecu~aUn~al Study. n'f
7.d
The project site is surrounded by urban/suburban development and as an infill pamel, its development
has no potential to adversely impact wildlife movement,
7.e
There are non-native tree species on the site that may require acquisition of a permit for removal. The
developer is required to obtain such a permit and no mitigation is required to ensure that the permit will be
obtained prior to removal of any trees on the property.
7.f
Development of the proposed project does not conflict with the provisions of any habitat conservation
plan and. in fact, with the mitigation outlined above should support implementation of such plans.
No additional mitigation will be required for the proposed project.
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important X
mineral resoume recovery site delineated on a local
general plan. specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
8.a
There are no mineral resource designations nor any known mineral resources on this project site Since
,the site is located on a ridge, outside of alluvial deposits, no potential for sand and gravel resources exists
on the project site.
8.b ,'Development of the site has no potential to lose access to known and available mineral resources since
none occur on the project site, nor is access required across the site to such resources.
No mitigation is required for the proposed project.
R:~D ~2000~0~.0140 Village of Temec~a~initiaJ Study,~
I 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarier mile of
an existing or proposed school? :
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X
hazardous materials sites compiled pumuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
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?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g. impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X
injury or death involving wild land fires, including where
wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wild lands? '
Comments:
9.a The proposed project will consist of residential, office and retail uses that do not invalve significant
potential for routine transport or use of hazardous materials or routine generation of hazardous wastes
beyond those normally encountered in urban/suburban "village center" type setting, typically termed
'household hazardous wastes". The one exception to this finding is the possibility of installing a gasoline
station at the project site. Therefore, a potential does exist for this project to create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through its implementation. Gasoline service stations are heavily regulated,
regarding both the management of fuel on the site and required operating conditions, which are
established through the County and other regulatory agencies, such as the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. To ensure that the implementation of a service station on the project site does not
pose any significant health hazard through the routine transport of hazardous materials for use and for
disposal, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
9.a. 1 Pdor to authorization to begin operations by receiving fuel or other hazardous petroleum
materials, the developer shall provide the City with the following materials: the Business
Plan filed with the Department of Environmental Health that outlines how hazardous
products will be safely delivered to the site; managed on the site; and removed from the
site as hazardous waste, ff any. This witl include all safety measures required to
minimize hazards and public health #sks as outlined in the required spill prevention,
response and countermeasures plan. All requirements for managing hazardous
EI:~D 1:~2000~0-0140 Village of Temecu~litial S~udy.~
9.b
9.C
9.d
9.f
9.g
9.h
materials and wastes must conform to local and state public health and safety
requirements established by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control.
Riverside County and the City of Temecula.
Since significant quantities of hazardous material (petroleum products, including gasoline and diesel fuel)
will be used or hazardous wastes generated on the site, a potential exists for significant impacts to the
environment from upset or accidental release conditions. The mitigation outlined under 9.a above will
ensure that any hazards related to upset or accidental release conditions are managed within the level of
safety established by regulatory agencies to ensure such a potential falls below a nonsignificant level of
potential safety hazard. Additional requirements may be necessary at the time a specific development
proposal is reviewed.
Since substantial quantities of hazardous materials or wastes will be handled on the project site
(petroleum fuels), there is a potential to emit hazardous emissions in quantities that could cause a
significant public health impact. SCAQMD Rules 461-464 establish the controls for operating gasoline
stations, and each station must conduct a public health dsk analysis before obtaining operating permits
Item the District. Regardless, there is no school within 1/4 mile that would be exposed to such emissions.
These emission control requirements are in place and mandatory, so additional mitigation is not required
to ensure that public health is not adversely impacted. Additional requirements may be necessary at the
time a specific development proposal is reviewed.
The project site is not identified as a contaminated site under Government Code Section 65962.5.
The project site is not near any airport or pdvate aimtrip and has no potential to advemely impact airport
operations.
Please refer to the discussion under 9.e above.
Development of the project site has no potential to modify or adversely affect an adopted emergency
response plan or evacuation plan.
The project site does contain a minimal wild land fire hazard onsite based on the presence of the CSS,
but due to the surrounding urban development this fire hazard is not considered significant. The
proposed project will eliminate the wild land fire hazard on the property if it is approved. No adveme wild
land fire hazard impact is forecast to occur and no mitigation is required.
R:'~D F~O00~O0-O 140 Village o! Temecula~lnitial Study.fi/
10. NOISE. Would the project:
a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of X
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground X
borne vibration or ground bome noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? ,.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the prejeot?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive .noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
~ the project expose people residing or working in the
- project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
10.a
According to a summary noise evaluation by Mestre Greve Associates, the project would be exposed to
noise levels of approximately 64.7 Ldn from traffic noise on Rancho California Road. However, the
residential uses included in the proposed project would not be exposed to noise at this level. The
Temecula Village Development design buffers the residential uses from traffic noise on Rancho California
Road with the office/retail development abutting Rancho California Road. The landscape elements
between the office/retail development and the residential component of the' project also buffer noise from
Rancho California Road. The future residents of the site will not be exposed to severe noise levels.
(Please also see response 10.c).
10.b Based on the discussion in 10.a above, development of the proposed project will not expose.future
residents to excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels.
10.c
Future background noise levels will be dominated at the project site by noise generated from traffic on
Rancho Califomia Road, directly north of the project site. The proposed project permits or Condilionally
permits the development of use such as a restaurant, small health club, small dance/aerobics/martial arts
studio (less than 5000 sq. ft.), Laundromat, and specialty retail uses in Sub Area A. These businesses
may operate during evening hours causing nuisance noise to residents in the development and in the
surrounding area. The proposed project also permits or conditionally permits the development oi a
fast-food restaurant, health club, dance/aerobics/martial arts studio (greater than 5000 sq. f~.), auditorium,
conference facilities, gas station with car wash, market, movie theater, Laundromat, nightclub/teen club,
veterinary clinic with overnight facilities, and specialty retail uses in Sub Area B. These businesses may
also operate during evening hours, but there is a nuisance ordinance requirement to ensure noise levels
are not excessive.
10.d
Construction noise levels will be above background noise levels during daylight hours, but the City
General Plan requires construction noise mitigation by restricting construction activities to daylight hours.
With implementation of this measure the short-term noise impacts are not forecast to be significant to the
surrounding land uses.
lO.a
lO.f
The project site is not located near an airport or a private airstrip and has no'potential to be exposed to
significant airport operation noise impacts,
Please refer to the discussion in 10.e above.
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:
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X
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? X
c, Police protection? X
d. Schools? X
e, Parks? X
f, Other public facilities? X
Comments:
11 .a
· 11.b
The proposed project is an infill development withln the central portion of the City of Temecula and all
services are already available atthe project site. The development of 160 apartment units and 71,100 sq.
ft. of office/retail space will place a small increment of cumulative demand on the service systems (fire,
poi!ce, schools, and parks). Based on a review of the GPEIR all of the. service system impacts from
developing the proposed project can be mitigated to below a significant level by implementing mitigation
. measures identified in that document. These measures include: Fire Service, Measures I and 2; Police
Service, Measures 1-4, and Education Measures 1-1 and 1-6, as appropriate. For park and recreation
seffices, those apprepda!e mitigation measures for the proposed project from Measures ·1-3, 1-8 and
1-12 shall be implemented. With implementation of these measures, the proposed Project can be
implemented without causing or contributing to a significant cumulative public services impact.
Please refer to the discussion in 11.a above.
11.c Please refer to the discussion in 1 l.a above.
11,d Please refer to the discussion in 11.a above.
11.e Please refer to the discussion in 11.a above.
11.f Please refer to the discussion in 11.a above.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X
applicable Regional Water Qualit~ Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X
wastewater treatment facliities 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 X
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 X
project from existing entitlements and resoumes, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X
)rovider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the proiecrs solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X
recjulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
12.a The proposed project will deliver wastewater to ihe regional treatment wastewater reclamation plant in
;l'emecula. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) operates the facility and it has capacity to meet
the demand from the proposed project within its authorized: treatment capacity. This facility operates
within its waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the proposed project is not forecast to cause a
violation Of wastewater treatment requirements, either directly or indirectly.
12.b According to the GPEIR, adequate capacity exists within the RCWD water supply and wastswater
treatment systems to provide water and wastewater capacity for the proposed project. This conclusion is
also supported by urban water master plan adopted by the RCWD,
12.c The site already drains to existing storm drains in the area and a regional storm water system. The
connection of this site will not Cause the need to expand these facilities based on detention of storm
runoff, Future volume of flow from the site would not exceed the current maximum flows due to onsite
retention,' The drainage analysis for the project site outlines the detailed information regarding existing
and future storm water runoff.
12,d
.12.e
12.f
12.g
Adequate water supplies have been identified by the RCVVD to meet the City of Temecula's Current and
immediate future demands, including the proposed prOject, See also 12.b above,
Adequate wastewater treatment capacity has been identified by the RCWD tO meet the City of
Temecula's current and immediate future demands, including.the proposed project. See also 12.b above.
According to the General Plan and the County Solid Waste Management Plan adequate landfill disposal
capacity exists within the regional landfills to meet current and future demands.
By participating in the City's source reduction and recycling element, the proposed project will comply
with all statutes and regulations for management of solid waste. The proposed commercial and
residential project does not pose any significant or unique management requirements.
R:tD 1:~200(R00.0140 V~lla~e o~ Temecula'g nilial
Regarding energy supplies to the project and region, the City of Temecula's General Plan identified
adequate capacity for energy systems. Since this document was adopted electric and natural gas utilities
have been deregulated and shod-term shortages in electricity and natural gas will be experienced until
new electrical generation and natural gas production have been installed and are in operation. This
impact is not considered a significant adveme impact at the level of individual urban developments,
because adequate capacity is available but at a higher costs than have occurred in the past, i.e., the
commemial systems ara functioning but at a much higher cost than forecasted. The energy availability
issue will cause short-term inconvenience dudng the higher electricity and natural gas consumption
periods, specifically on the hottest summer days when air conditioning loads are the greatest or during
the winter on cold days.
The City has adopted building codes that require implementation of energy conservation measures for
new development. Implementation of these design and construction standards is considered adequate
compliance with energy conservation goals and policies. The additional energy demands resulting from
the project would normally be considered a less than significant impact. However, as noted above recent
shortages in generation capacity may require the new residents to pay higher costs for electricity or to
accept short-term rolling black outs in response to excessive short-term demand. These limitations will
be resolved as new generating capacity is brought on line over the next few years. This short-term
electricity constraint is not considered to bea significant adveme impact, particularly since the new
structures will be constructed with an awareness of these constraints.
13. Ails I HETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adveme effect on a scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic resoumes, including, but not X
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building
within a state scenic highway?
c.' Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X
· quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Comments:
13.a
13.b
13.C.
The proposed project will infill a small undeveloped area along the Rancho California Road urban
corridor. No scenic vistas will be adversely impacted at the project location from developing the proposed
.project based on the surrounding land uses, which are consistent with that proposed.by this project.
No major tree resources, rock outcroppings or historic buildings exist on the project site. The project site
is not located on a scenic highway, but it will be required to meet design requirements along Rancho
California Road to be consistent with existing development. This is a planning and design issue for which
the City has established design guidelines and no adverse environmental impact or mitigation is required
to ensure that the project conforms to local design guidelines.
The proposed project will be located adjacent to existing single-family units to the east of the project site.
Design requirements will be imposed on the proposed project by appiication of standards in the Planned
Development Overlay District in addition to the Community Design Element standards and design plan.
· Based on the City's requirement to meet these design guidelines, the proposed project has no potential to
substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and surroundings, V,;hich is comprised of a
combined urban/suburban visual setting.
R:",D Pt,2000~O-~140 Village of Temecula',lnitlal Study, rtl
.13,d
The proposed project must meet the Count, s Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 requirements for no
conflict with Palomar Observatory. Due to proximity to residential uses, the project will be conditioned to
not create significant light and glare impacts onsite or impacting the surrounding area and uses.
Implementation of this measure will ensure that no light or glare sensitive areas are exposed to significant
light and glare impacts,
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historical resoume as defined in Section 1506.57
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an amhaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
~ outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
14.a
A cultural resources survey of the project site was conducted by Jean A. Keller and no 'historical
resoumes are known to occur on the project site. Therefore, no potential exists for the proposed project
to adversely impact such resources.
14.b
The GPEIR sensitivity map for archaeological resources identified the project site as being within a
sensitive area for archaeological resources. Jean A. Keller completed a survey of the site and no
resources were discovered on the property. However, due to the potential for such resources to occur in
the subsudace of the property, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:
Dudng initial grading and ground disturbance activities, a qualified cultural resources
monitor shall be present and shall have the authority to stop and redirect ground
disturbance activities to evaluate the significance of any cultural resources exposed.
14.b.2
ff any cultural resources are exposed during initial grading and ground disturbance
activities the City shall be contacted, and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the
resources, ff discovered resources merit long-term consideration, adequate funding
shall be provided'to collect, curate and report these ~esources in accordance with
standard archaeological management requirements.
14.b.3
ff any human remains are encountered dudng initial grading activities, all ground
disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall be terminated immediately and
the County Coroner's office shaft be contacted to manage such remains.
Although the probability is Iow, any cultural resources discovered during site preparation and grading will
be managed to ensure that all resource value is protected and preserved. With implementation of the
above measures, the potential for significant cultural resource impact has been reduced to a level of no
significance.
14.c
The GPEIR sensitivity map for paleontological resources identified the project site as being within a
sensitive area for paleontological resources. Due to the potential for such resources to occur on the
property, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:
~ F~2(X)O~O0-O 140 Village o[ Teenecula~lnitlal Study.~
14.c. 1
During excavation and hill-side cutting activities, a qualified paleontological monitor
shall be present and shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities to
evaluate the significance of any paleontological resources exposed dudng the grading
activity within the alignment. If paleontological resources are encountered, adequate
funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report on these resources to the ensure
the values inherent in the resources are adequately characterized and preserved.
14.d Please refer to the discussion in 14.a above.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing ~,x~ X
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 X
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
I envirenment?
Comments;
15.a The proposed project includes recreation areas as part of the project including swimming pool, clubhouse
and play areas. Based on the inclusion of these recreational features as part. of the proposed project;
existing neighborhood park utilization is not forecast to increase significantly. The residents of the
development are likely t9 increase demand for regional facilities, such as baseball diamonds, basketball
courts, etc. However, these are managed facilities where the individual users is typically integrated into
.existing leagues and the cumulative demand for such facilities is not forecast to increase substantially
from implementing the proposed project. No significant adverse ·impact to recreational resources is
forecast to occur from implementing the proposed project.
15.b Please refer to the'discussion in 15.a above.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
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, X
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
proiects, and the effects of probable future projects?
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?.
Comments:
16.a-c
The Temecula Village Development consists of a 160-unif apartment complex and 71,100 sq. ft.
office/retail space that is proposed to be constructed on an infiil pamel of land located on the south side of
Rancho California Road, approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Rancho California Road and
Cosmic Drive. The proposed project is not consistent .with the details of the City of Temecula General
Plan and zonirlg designations as delineated on current land use and zoning maps. However, it is
consistent with the concept of Village Center and Planned Development Overlay presented in the General
Plan as a method of integrating multiple uses over a large site containing more than one land use or
.zoning designation. For the majority (eight of fifteen) of environmental issues discussed in this Initial
Study Environmental Checklist Form (Land Use and Planning, Population and HoUSing, Geology and
Soils, Mineral Resoumes, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Utilities and Service
Systems, and Recreation) no potential.for significant adverse impact has been identified and no project
specific mitigation, other than standard conditions utilized by the City, will be required.
For the remaining seven issues project specific mitigation will be required to ensure that implementation
of the proposed project does not cause significant adverse physical changes in the environment.
Specifically, mitigation is identified to control erosion and sedimentation on the site for Hydrology and
Water Quality issues. Mitigation is established to prevent nuisance fugitive dust from impacting adjacent
uses during construction. The project site contains coastal sage scrub habitat that was determined to be
occupied by the Califomia Gnatcatcher. Based on discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
this site will not be managed for long-term habitat and offsite compensation is the appropriate mitigation
to reduce this impact to a level of no significance. The project's traffic is identified as having a.potential to
adversely impact the Iooal ctmulation system and a combination of recently completed improvements and
project specific improvements are required to ensure that the circulation system operates at acceptable
levels of service in the future, The sife is identified as having a potential for significant paleontological
rosoumes and the possibility of archaeological resources. Mitigation is identified to reduce the potential
impacts to such resources to a no significant level of impact. Mitigation is also provided to reduce the
nuisance noise, from evening/night-time uses on the project site, to a less than significant level. Finally,
mitigation is identified to control potential commercial lighting impacts on adjacent residential property.
Based on the evaluation contained in this Initial Study, the City proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaratlen as the appropriate environmental determination to comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
P~000~[X~O 140 Village of Temecul~lnitial Study. ill
17. EARUER 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 d;scusslon should identify the following on
attached sheets.
a. Earlier 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
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
Ihe mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
SOURCES
2.
3.
4.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
City of Temecuia General Plan, 1993.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 1993.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook
1999 Quino Checkerspot Buttedly Survey 45-Day Letter Report Rancho California Road Project, Merkel &
Associates, Inc., June 10, 1999
Kading/Rancho California Road City of Temecula Biological Constraints Report, Merkel & Associates, Inc.
June 4, 1999.
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Temocula Village/Temecula Ridge Development Temecula, California,
Wilbur Smith Associates, August 28, 2000..
Temecula Village Planned Development Overlay, Markham Development Management Group, Inc.,
January 2001.
Drainage/Hydrology Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 29140 Village Commercial and Apartments
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) 1997
Southern California Association of Govemmants 'Regional comprehensive Plan and Guide", 1996
Phase'l Cultural Resoumes Assessment -Temecula Ridge (PA99-0371), Jean A. Keller, 1999
Preliminary Noise Analysis for Temecula Ridge, Mestre Grave Associates, February 14,2000.
Geotechnical InVestigation Proposed ResidentiaVCommemial Development City of Temecula, CH J, Inc.,
June 8, 1999
Riverside county Flood Control District "Supplement A to the Riverside county Drainage Area
Management Plans, and Attachment to Supplement A", 1996
Rancho California Water District, Steve Brannon, P.E., May 17, 2000
May 17,2000
~AY l 8 2000
Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Ddve
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
LOT NO. 24 OF TRACT NO. 3334
APN 944-290-012, APN 944-290-0i3 AND
APN 944-290-014
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0149
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the'
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an. '
Agency .Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at. this office.
Sincerely, . ·
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
00~SB:atO66~F012-T3~CF
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Carole Donahoe
Case Planner
City of Temecula planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-903J
IV[A'( 3'1 2000
Re: Planning Application PA00-0149; City of Temecula. Riverside County, California
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
We have reviewed Planning Application PA00-O 149, V'fllage of Temecula Apartments, Riverside
County, California. We offer the following comments and recommendations on the biological
resources that could be affected by the proposed project based on our knowledge of sensitive and
declining species and habitat types in Riverside County.
We are concerned about "take" of federally listed species protected under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take of any federally
listed endangered species by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Take
includes "harass" and "harm", as defined by section 3 of the Act. Harass in the definition of take
means "an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to
wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns
which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering." Harm in the definition of
take in the Act means "ah act which actUally kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include '
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.".
(see 50 CFR § 17.3). Take incidental to an other~vise lawful activity may be authorized under
sections 7 or 10 of the Act.
The proposed project i~ to construct a 160-unit, two-story apartment complex with clubhouse and
pool. The project site is located on the south side of Rancho California Road, west of C0smic
Drive in Riverside County. This area is known to support occupied habitat for the federally
threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, gnatcatcher),
endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), and the endangered
Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi, SKR). Populations of these species have been
documented in the Rancho California area. If habitat, such as. remnant coastal sage scrub, clay
soils, or grasslands, occurs on the proposed project site, then the site may support listed species.
Therefore, we recommend that focused surveys occur within suitable habitat on site prior to any
Carole Donahoe
2
ground distufoing activities. If these wildlife species occupy the project site, incidental take
authorization likely will be required before the proposed project can proceed.
The proposed project occurs within the boundary of the Stephens' kangaroo rat Habitat
Conservation Plan. Compliance with the.regional incidental take permit will be required prior to
any ground disturbing activities. If wetlands are affected by the proposed project, an U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers section 404 permit and/or California Department of Fish and Game 1600
permit may be required. We recommend that impacts to coastal sage scrub or any other sensitive
resource be considered cumulatively significant and mitigated prior to any ground disturbing
activities. ·
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. If you have any
questions or comments please contact Ruth Olsen of my staff at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
,ffttt~ Jim A. Bartel
Assistant Field Supervisor
I-6-00-NFTA-339
cC: Glenn Black (CDFG, Chino)
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Project Description: Planning Application PA00-0138 General Plan Amendment
Planning Application PA00-0139 Zoning Amendment
Planning Application PA00-0152 Tentative Parcel Map
Planning Application PA00-0140 Development Plan
Location:
South of Rancho California Road, east of Cosmic Drive and west of
Moraga Road intersection, (APN# 944-290-012, 013, & 014).
Applicant:
The MJW Property Group, Barton L Buchalter,
7131 Owensmouth Ave, Suite 6-D
Canoga Park, CA 91309-7961
Biolo.qical Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Affect endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and
birds).
(1). The project developer shall acquire compensatory mitigation
acreage off the project site as discussed with the U.S; Fish and
Wildlife Service staff whose preference is for offsite mitigation at
3:1 ratio for costal sage scrub and a 1:1 ratio for undisturbed
grassland, with appropriate endowments and protection of
resources at the mitigation site. The developer shall provide the
City with a copy of the incidental take permit issued for the
proposed development pdor to grading the project site.
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the grading plan check review process.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
Hazards and Hazardous materials
General Impact:
Create a significant h~ard to the public or the environment
through routine transportation, use, or disposal or hazardous
materials.
Mitigation Measures:
(2). Pdor to authorization to begin operations by receiving fuel or
other hazardous petroleum materials, the developer shall provide
the City with the following mate#als: the Business Plan filed with
the Department of Environmental Health that outlines how
R:~D P~2000~0-0140 Village oi= Temecula'dVli~gaflon Monitoring Program.doc
1
hazardous products will be safely delivered to the site; managed
on the site; and removed from the site as h~7~rdous waste, ff any.
This will include all safety measures required to minimize hazards
and public health risks as outlined in the required spill prevention,
response and countermeasures plan. All requirements for
managing hazardous materials and wastes must conform to local
and state public health and safety requirements established by the
State Department of Toxic Substances Control. Riverside County
and the City of Temecula.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures prior to the issuance of a building permit fo~ uses
producing hazardous materials (e.g. gas station).
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Riverside County Fire Department, Building and Safety
Department, Public Works Department and Planning Department
Cultural Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5
(3). During initial grading and ground disturbance activities, a
qualified cultural resources monitor shall be present and shall
have the authority tO stop and redirect ground disturbance
activities to evaluate the significance of any cultural resources
exposed.
Specific Process:
(4), If any cul(ural resources are exposed during initial
grading and ground disturbance activities the City shall be
contacted, and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the
resources. If discovered resources merit long-term
consideration, adequate funding shall be provided to
collect, curate and report these resources in accordance
with standard archaeological management requirements.
(5). ff any human remains are encountered during initial
grading activities, all ground disturbing activities in the
vicinity of the discovery shall be terminated immediately
and the County Coroner's office shall be contacted to
manage such remains.
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the grading and building plan check review
process.
R:~,D F~2000~00-0140 Village of Temecula',Mitigaflon Monitoring Program.doc · 2
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party
Pdor to the issuance of a building permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
Cultural Resources (cont.)
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Directly or indirectly.destroy a unique paleotological resource or
site or unique geological feature.
(6). Du#ng excavation and hill-side cutting activities, a qualified
paleontological monitor shall be present and shall have the
authority to stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the
significance of any paleontological resources e,~posed during the
grading activity within the alignment. If paleontological resources
are encountered, adequate funding shall be provided to collect,
curate and report on these resources to ensure that the values
inherent in the resources are adequately characterized and
preserved.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the grading plan check review process.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific ProcesS:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.
(7). If any human remains are encountered during initial grading
activities, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the
discovery shall be terminated immediately and the'County
Coroner's office shall be contacted to manage such remains.
Planning staff will verify comPliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the grading and building plan check review
process.
During any ground disturbance and prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
R:'~D FA.2000~00-0140 Village of Temecula'~/li§gation Monitoring Program.doc
3