HomeMy WebLinkAbout090606 PC Agenda
II
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
. to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
September 6, 2006 - 6:00 P.M.
********
Next in Order:
Resolution No. 06-55
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
RollCall:
Commissioner Harter
Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are Iimiled to three (3) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission.
Secretary brior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members
of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve.the Minutes of August 16, 2006
R:\PlANCOMMlAgendas\2006I09-06-06.doc
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or In opposition to the approval of the
project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be
limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or
in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an
appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be flied within 15 calendar days
after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning
Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
New Items
2 Plannina Aoolication No. PA04-0543. a Develooment Plan. submitted bv Mark Stock of
HB&A Architects. Inc.. for a oroDOsed one-storv 17.378 sauare foot concrete tilt-uo office
_ and warehouse buildina. located on the east side of Del Rio Road. aooroximatelv 150 feet
south of Calle Cortez Road. Christine Damko. Associate Planner.
3 Plannina AoolicationNo. PA05-0389. a Conditional Use Permit with a Develooment Plan.
submitted bv Matthew Faaan Consultina Services. for the construction of two new buildinas
to accommodate a sanctuarv and classrooms. and for the use of an existina chaoel totalina
15.043 sauare feet at an existina reliaious institution. located within the Rancho Hiahlands .
Soecific Plan at 28871 Santiaao Road. Dana Schuma. Associate Planner.
4 Plannina Aoolication No. PA06-o197. a orooosed Develooment Aareement Amendment.
submitted bv Kenneth Lee of Forest City Commercial Develooment. to extend the term of
the Temecula Reaional Center Develooment Aareement an additional three years to orovide
for the future develooment of the remainina sauare footaae allowed under the final ohase of
the Temecula Reaional Center Soecific Plan. located in the Temecula Reaional Center
Soecific Plan bound bv Winchester Road. Maraarita Road. Overland Road and Ynez Road.
Chervl Kitzerow/Matt Peters. Associate Planners.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Wednesday, September 20, 2006, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. .
R:IPLANCOMMlAgendasl2OO6\09-06-06.doc
2
ITEM #1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 16,2006
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, August 16, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200.
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners: Carey, Chiniaeff, Harter, Telesio, arid Chairman Guerriero.
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of August 2, 2006.
2 Director's Hearina Case Uodate
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Chairman
Guerriero who abstained from Item No. 1.1.
R:\MinutesPC\081606
1
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Continued from July 5, 2006
3 Plannina Aoolication Nos. PA05-0395. PA05-0396. and PA05-0397. a Tentative Tract Mao.
Develooment Plan. and Conditional Use Permit. submitted bv Lindsav Quackenbush
reoresentina DR Horton. for the develooment and construction of 292 condominium
residential units includina 29 affordable housina units comorisina of 189 tri-olex units in 63
buildinas. 25 five-olex units in 5 buildinas. 78 six-olex units in 13 buildinas. located on the
northeast corner of Pechanaa Parkwav and Loma Linda Road
Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that the applicant has requested additional time to prepare
for the hearing; and therefore, staff would recommend that Item NO.3 be continued off calendar.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation and continue Item
No. 3 off calendar. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected .
un~nimous approvaL
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
No additional comments.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:01 p.m., Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned to Seotember 6. at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MlnutesPC\081606
2
.
ITEM #2
DATE OF MEETING:
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT
DESCRlPTlbN:
RECOMMENDATION:
CEQA:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 6. 2006
Christine Damko
", TITLE: Associate Planner
.---~
Planning Application No. PA04-0543, a Development Plan for a
proposed one-story 17,378 square foot concrete tilt-up service
commercial building located near the northeast comer of Del Rio
and Calle Cortez .
[8J Approve with Conditions .
D Deny
D Continue for Redesign
D Continue to:
D Recommend Approval with Conditions
D Recommend Denial
[8J Categorically Exempt
D Notice of Determination
(Section)
(Class)
(Section)
15332
32 In-Fill Dev.
D Negative Declaration
D Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
R:\O P12004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolPC STAFF REPORT.doc
1
, .
'..c
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: Marc Stock, HB&A Architects
Date of Completion: October 4, 2004
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: September 6, 2006
General Plan Designation: Service Commercial
Zoning Designation: Service Commercial-
Site/Surrounding Land Use: Existing Service Commercial uses
Site:
Existing car storage
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing building
Existin~ building
Existing building (Army Navy Store)
Murrieta creek ..
Lot Area:
1.43 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
30% maximum! 29% proposed
Landscape Area/Coverage:
20 % required! 20% proposed
Parking Required/Provided:
40 required!40 provided
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the
applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
The project was submitted on October 4; 2004. Staff met with the applicant to discuss site
layout and architecture concems on November 2, 2004. The applicant submitted revised plans
on March 14,2006 and again on July 7,2006.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan
The project conforms to the development regulations and policies for service commercial
buildings contained in the Development Code and Design Guidelines. .. The building setbacks
meet the minimum requirements of Section 17.08.030 of the Development Code and the 29.15
percent Floor Area Ratio is below the target ratio of 30 percent for this zoning district.
R;\D P12004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RioIPC STAFF REPORT,doc
2
The project proposes to design and construct a single-story service commercial building
totaling 18,209 square feet. Due to the long, linear shape of the property, the project's site
design was constrained. Overall, staff feels that the proposed site plan provides variation in
the building footprint, provides for an employee outdoor eating area, as well as providing a
decorative pedestrian pathway to the development. .
Access and Circulation
Vehicle access to the proposed site will be provided by two drive aisles located off of Del Rio
Road. The main entrance is located south of the proposed building while the second entrance
is intended for delivery trucks and other large vehicles. The drive aisles will provide a clear
path of travel around the building and extending into the adjacent property (Salvation Army),
where there is a reciprocal access agreement between the two properties. The Public Works
Department has analyzed the potential traffic impacts of the project and has determined that
the impacts are Consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the previously
approved City of Temecula General Plan EIR. The Fire Department also reviewed the plans
and determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to
the site. .
Architecture
The proposed building is consistent with the Development Code, Design Guidelines, and is
compatible with other adjacent buildings. The proposed architecture includes smooth concrete
with concrete detailing around the entries. The applicant uses color variation in hues of gold,
marble, and grey to break up the building mass. The building includes 6 to 18 feet wide
recessed entries and painted steel canopies extending out four feet on the east, west, and
south elevations. The building provides adequate roofline variation by providing a decorative
cornice both on the lower entries and on the ridgeline. The entries of the building are further
enhanced with decorative lighting to complete the look of the sleek, classic architecture that
the building represents. The pedestrian walkway (this is required by ADA) located in front of
the building along Rio Nedo will be architecturally enhanced with a decorative wrought iron
hand rail and decorative concrete ramp. The applicant is conditioned to provide details of the
decorative concrete as a condition of approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
LandscapinQ
The landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code and
Design Guidelines. Tree species such as Red Crepe Myrtle (36 inch box), Evergreen Elm (24
inch box), and Chinese Flame tree (24 inch box) are provided along the property lines. Tree
and shrub placement will serve to effectively screen onsite parking areas, roll-up doors, and to
soften building elevations. This project proposes to landscape 12,759 square feet of the site;
which meets the minimum requirement of 20 percent in the Service Commercial zone. The
project provides landscaping around the perimeter of the site and varied landscaped setbacks
around the building footprints.
R:\D P\2004\04-0543 Alvarez Prciperties Del R10IPC STAFF REPORT.doc
. 3
ENVIRONMENTAl DETERMINATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been
. deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Section 15332, Class
32, In-Fill Development).
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff has determined that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's
General Plan, .Development Code, and Design Guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the Development Plan with the attached Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Section 17.05.0tOF)
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City.
!
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for the
service commercial development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General
Plan
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in the City
of Temecula Development Code. The proposed architecture and site layout for the
project has been reviewed utilizing the Service Commercial Development Performance
Standards of the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The proposed project has
met the performance standards in regards to circulation, architectural design. and site
land sign.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 5
2. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 6
3.. PC Resolution 06-_ - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
R:\D P\2OO4104-Q543 A/Varez Properties Del RioIPCSTAFF REPORT.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
R:\D PI2OO4\O<Hl543 AJvarez Properties Del RlolPC STAFF REPORT.doc
5
PA04-0543
\ \ \
i \ \.
..........?...&
/"1
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\D PI2OO4I04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolPC STAFF REPORT.doc
a
o
P2
~
,;;
2 ..
~~
i~
~g
~~
re~
~
I
,
I
I
I
I
I!
d~
~ ~I
"
,-
,i!!lll
1m:;
.
Ii
II!I;
I!iiii
~
~
;1I1~~llli2i ; \~ II
I b, ---
J :t"j
I I I: I IIIP d . I:
Iii ! . ,tll $ II :1: I i I ~:!i I
. e II If l! I u. -Il'I" ,
i i i i iI!! I !Ill Ii i
10:: I::,', ~ 0 ; 1l:~I.lIIIII:li'i!l I
.' 'i; 1 h I I ~ .IS Ii
.; :,; %~~ #~ j' ,
1----
" ,
.: ,
WI I'!, PI! -,' :,'1
33~ lid ~ I ~
i :i:iii :i:iii !:i i i ~I
1'1 II m 1,11 l!!! ': l..l 11
,I · II'
llllli' " i
,'Ill ill I, ',I, ! ,'II ~
: II:hlllil!llllll bid Hh ~ii ~
E
Ie I
1
i
---
~-
~o~--
~-
--- - --- -,!j
--- II
Iii
-
<(
i:
z
<(
~
~
w
r-
'"
o
w,
"':
0'-
..-
o~
"'"
~~
~
. l
.
.
.
.
.
=
. ~
..,
=
/l
=.ol
, .
..
. i
"
,I ,I
.II II
! II lib' , I,lb!
11!~I!!ll!ln~I!Ull!!
i 111 n
I:: ~
"
I
I i
:, I I
, '.
1,,'1'
li,l.1
; !mi!
111I11
-
I;
I!
j.
III
,
"
,
1\,
~ '{ I
''( ~ ;: ;:
...........---
I
j
I
,.
I
'"
~
i
~l
1:;
.-
--
--'
--'
.--
--
--
.---.---
-
III
III
I
i ~
I
I
1=
1=
t1=t
~
!
!C
1=
F-
0<
<u
2
<
0"
-,
<u
;:~
O~
N
<(
.-
I
I i
:, I I
, '.
1=1'1'
11,1.1
; II"'!
, "'
11I11I
-
~
!::
11
----."..
__-....-- 0_
...'" ----;:--
_...--- ~-;::::-..---
..._...... ~ 9-op.I) -,-.,----
-------_/:.-:~-;:::;:::~;:::;::>....
... -::::::::---,-
---......-...-
z'
""~
~,
0..
w<
1-"
v>
"
z
l-
v>
x
w
o
z
""
v>
U
'"
I-
W
:lO
o
I-
o
:I:
0.
, .1
!'I'
, 'I
Ill"
I Ii "I: 1
II iI
0%00
I
t-o=
Ii
Ii
~,
0.'
;=J
'1:.,--,
, ,
,-"
t-o=
"
~-
O.
o
'"
i
H
'"
o
o
~
~
I
..
n
i-J
I H i
t-o=
I I i
,--,
j_J
m I i ,--,
, ,
,,-" -" ",
",
~"
~
c.~.. 8;
I ~ .
I ~ ; N
~
L..J
: ... !
) II! I i J - -<
I ~ I f! II I i! i; ~ h . ~ c< .
. <0 ~.
! III !Ill 'I : g iii I; ~o o _
. .
0- < . i
!1I1i · il! 1'1 II II !l!ll II ." c~ _ ,
. ~ -, - I
lilld !IlI.lI!!I!!i~1 l'llliil .0 . ii -,-
NW --~ ~
wC @
i In!! 1Id1,! iii illl: II II 11111 " C~
<
> .."I.!
0~~~0~<$~~<>~.. @&98 ~
,"
z
"'~
z'
0,
.
....,
I -<.
>"
w:
~.
w
~
. "
<
. z
~
.
. "
w
~\ ~
g.
~~ =>
m
...
~
o
I!
.,
..
~
ii
.
.
~
.
Z ~
:5
0.
o
~~O
:JO<(
frl~o
:200:::
I!:!....IO
u..<(0:::
0::)....1
>-I-W
1-0.0
-w
{JOg
z~
O~
O~
i
-
i II II Iii
Ill;," bl
.. ~ ---
I
!
I
~
..
....
i
.
t
,
ill
I!I
Ii I .t
.' I
/1 I
----
~---:>-~Q
__t _____ II
-------- '
----
-----
, ----
i
I
;!
~
il
.
~i !i
I 'I I"
I! ~ . ( .
I II ~ I- l~ ~ ~
f ~ ffi -MIU i;! J ~; B i;
m li,li Ili6'!! I ! ~ i; ~ II ~ ~ I"
! Ilfh I Mli~ ~ ; ~ ~i ~!! i I ~ 5~
I
i
!J
- ! Imi1~
<< ! J~!
~ ;" ts i di i il
.'. '; J Jli i Ol~
~ I' U' 'i';
; s Ci! !ii
:; ~ ~ .~~
..i!!
!ll~
.
.
:;
.
~
s
!~ !oj: [:;
; ~
, dl '
II ! .~I
~::
.
,
, .
,
,
i n I! I
in HI
l j i ! ! !
I ! 1 j; I
J H H I
! H II I
~ Q . . . . ,
PHIlI
Hi! IlIll
~ I. I' i i I
;:I I J 3
n iii; I
I q I' ; II
. liP ! HI I Ii
.!~~ ! gl~lii II
;! ~!lii Id~II!I,II::
~ i I '1'"'''''' I"
I :1~!I~I~!~I~!:!i !!l!
II I · ·
hl~H!;11 d
hlllllu . I
1"1 lul
&(J; ~l~,,!bO~
c ".' ~,~
!:I1.2t!d~:::' t-}.~~
I
,
~
~.
J J i
~ ~ ~
~ ~
.
~ili
, ;1,1
-1,1 -
. .
~ .
ft ~
.
. ~
I ~ !
~
. i i
I I ;1
· ~ i:
I
~
;,
~ .
!
.
~
~
~
s
.
,
.
i
I
I
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_ .
R;ID P\2Q04\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RioIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECUI-A APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA04-0543, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PROPOSED
SINGLE-STORY 17,378 SQUARE FOOT CONCRETE TILT-UP
BUILDING
Section 1. On October 4, 2004, Marc Stock, filed Planning Application No. PA04-
0543, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula Ge'neral Plan and Development Code.
Section 2.. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
Section 3. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on September 6, 2006, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and
did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
Section 4. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
Section 5. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 6. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
. Section 7. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City;
The proposal is Consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for the
seMce commercial development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General
Plan. '
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the pUblic
health, safety, and general welfare; '.
The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in the City
of Temecula Development Code. The proposed architecture and site layout for the
project has been reviewed utilizing the Service Commercial Development Performance
Standards of the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The proposed project has
met the performance standards. in regards to circulation, architectural design, and site
land sign.
R:\D P\2004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolPC RESOUITION,doc
I
Section 8. Environmental Comoliance. In accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been deemed to be categorically exempt
from further environmental review. (Section t5332, Class 32, In-Fill Development).
Section 9. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves
Planning Application No. PA04-0543, a Development Plan for a proposed one-story 17,378
square foot tilt up building, located near the northwest corner of Del Rio and Calle Cortez,.
subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be
deemed necessary.
. Section 10. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 6th day of September 2006.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 06- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temeculaat a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of
September 2006, by the following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\D P\2OO4\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolPC RESOUITION.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDmONS OF APPROVAL
R:\D Pl2004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del Rlo\PC RESOLUTION.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No;: PA04-0543
Project Description:
A Development Plan for a proposed single-story 17,378 .
square foot concrete tilt-up building located near the,
northwest corner of Del Rio and Calle Cortez
Assessor's Parcel No.
921-050-024
MSHCP Category:
DIF Category:
TUMF Category:
Commercial
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
September 6, 2006
September 6, 2008
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-four Dollars ($64.00)
for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as
provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Califomia Code of Regulations
Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the
Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall
be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
R:ID P\2004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
R:ID P\20Q4\Q4.0543 Alvarez Properties Del RioIDrafl COAs.doc
'2
Planning Department
2. . The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Planning Department staff, and retum one signed set to the Planning Department for
their files.
3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
. City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, .
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, conceming the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves. the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. The permittee sheill obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan.
5. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become
null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by
this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion,
or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
6. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. . (Sign program may be
required).
7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and
elevations contained on file with the Planning Department.
8. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques. finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed
satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment,
finish or technique that City staff detennines to be the substantial equivalent of that required
by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case
the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the
decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
Material
Stucco (main)
Accent Stucco (entries)
Accent Stucco
Color
Sherwin Williams "Ancient MarbleSW 6162"
Sherwin Williams "Saucy Gold SW 6370"
SherwinWilliams "Svelte Sage SW 6164"
9. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
R:ID Pl2004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
3
bring the landscaping into confonnance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
10. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for penn anent filing two 8" X 10"
glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored
architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be
readable on the photographic prints.
11. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These
shall be clearly labeled on site plan.
Public Works Department
12. A Grading Penn it for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall
be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
13. An Encroachment Pennit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
14. All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing
improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of
Temecula mylars.
15. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent
post-construction water quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent
non-permitted runoff from discharging offsite or entering any stonn drain system or receiving
water.
16. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to the City. The WQMP will
include site design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment
mechanisms. .
Building and Safety Department.
17. All design cOmponents shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and. Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access
Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal COde.
18. The City of T emecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area
wide Transportation Unifonn Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on
March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building
pennit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee
schedule in effect at the time of building pennit issuance. .
19. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of iight pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
R:\O P\2004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del R1o\Orafl CDAs.doc
. 4
20. A receipt or clearance letter from the T emecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
21. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
22. Show all building setbacks.
23. Developments with Multi-tenant Buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house electrical
meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire
alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall
clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the
operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically
proposed.
24. ' All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998).
25. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
26. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
27. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
28. ,Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
29. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at tlie entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-21,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457. 73, for any site within one-
, quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday, 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday , 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays
Fire Prevention
30. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention,'Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
31. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
'construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendixlll.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this projeQt, a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850GPM for a
total fire flow of 3850 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. , The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A).
R:ID P\2004'D4-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
5
32. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x
4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be
located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2,
903.4.2, and Appendix III-B).
33. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around.the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this proiect on site fire hvdrants are reauired (CFC 903.2).
Community Services Department
34. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as,
. regular solid waste containers.
35. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
36. The Applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
37. . All parkways, landscaping, fencing and on site lighting shall be maintained by the
maintenance association.
R:ID P\2004\o4-0543'Alvarez Properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
6
. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
R:\D P\2004104-0543 Alvarez Properties Del Rlo\Drafl COAs.doc
. . 7
Planning Department
38. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project
site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the.
Director of Planning.
39. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other distIJrbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the
Director of Planning." .
Public Works Department
40. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
41. The Developer' shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
42. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
43. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address
special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction.
44. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying. storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements. shall be provided by the Developer.
R:ID P12004104-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RlolDmft COAs.doc
. 8
45. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading,
Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's
standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control.
46. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for
Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number
(WOlD) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of
construction activities.
47. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
48. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
. Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any undertying maps related to the subject property.
. 49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
50. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
. money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
51. A portion of the site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as a Flood
Zone. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code
which may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain
Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval.
R:ID P\2004\O<Hl543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
9
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
R:ID PI2004\~543 Alvarez Propertie$ Del RioIDraft COA$.doc
. 10
Planning Department
52. The applicant shall provide a detail of all proposed decorative hardscape to the Planning
Department for approval.
53. The applicant shall provide a detail of an architecturally upgraded ADA ramp located in front
of the proposed building.
54. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot to the Planning
Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar
Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not
adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees.
55. All downspouts shall be intemalized.
56. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved
conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number,
genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be
consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of T emecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all
parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area.
c.. Provide an agronomic soils report with the construction landscape plans.
d. One copy of the approved grading plan.
e. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
f. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
g. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map.
h. Sizes of trees shall be provided at the following minimum ratios as required by the
CityWide Design Guidelines: 10%at48" box, 10% at 36" box, 30% at 24" box, and
50% at 15 gallon.
i. . A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the
proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and
landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved
maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor
who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
j. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be
required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being
pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two (2) hours without loss of
pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-
head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the
approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the
Planning Department to schedule inspections.
R:ID P12004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDrafl COAs.doc
11
57. Building Construction Plans shall include details outdoor areas (including but not limited to
trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape (choose or add to as appropriate) to
match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
58. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange". .
The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on
a 9-ineh grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inches apart. The numerals shall
be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a
contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely
as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street.
Public Works Department
59. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria
shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P .C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207 A.
c. Concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance
with City of T emecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402.
d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
e. Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
60. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Del Rio Road (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' A/W) to include
installation of curb, sidewalk, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to
. water and sewer).
61. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: curb, sidewalk, drive
approaches ..
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Sewer and domestic water systems
d. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
62. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
. Engineer and reviewed by the Director ofthe Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of
Public Works.
R:\D P\2004'D4-0543 Alvarez Properties eel RlolDraft COAs.doc
12
63. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
64. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property.
65. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 ofthe Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
66. The Developer shall pay to the City the Westem Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
Building and Safety Department
67. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of
the Califomia Building Code Appendix 29.
68. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review.
69. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
. 70. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
71. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
72: A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior. to the start of the
building construction. .
Fire Prevention
73. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
. 74. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion otan exterior wall of the building(s). . Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum ACthickness of .25 feet
(CFC sec 902).
75. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1).
R:ID P\2004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
13
76. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1).
77. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
. the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1).
Community Services Department
78. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
R:IO P\2004104-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolOraft COAs.doc.
14
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
. THIS PERMIT
R:ID P\2004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDrafl COAs.doc
15
Planning Department
79. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant
shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from
view of the adjacent residences and publicright-of-wayS. If upon final inspection it is
determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet
walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the
developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof
element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning.
80. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be'properly constructed and in good working order.
81. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one
. year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation
system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the
bond shall be released upon request by the applicant.
82. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
. the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating
the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with
disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed by telephoning 951 696-3000."
83. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
three square feet in size.
84. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed
prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit.
85. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
Public Works Department
86. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP
have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for
immediate implementation. .
R:ID P\2004\04-0543 Alvarez properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
16
87. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho Califomia Water District
b. Eastem Municipal Water District
c. . Department of Public Works
88. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to thesatisfaction,of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
89. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
Fire Prevention
90.. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3).
. 91. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimumlWelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers (;m both the front and rear doors (CFC 901.4.4).
. 92: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9).
93. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10).
94. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door (CFC 902.4). .
'95. All/any manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC 902.4).
96. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs. .
R:ID P\20Q4\lJ4.0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
17
97.. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards (CFC Article 81).
98. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the qeveloper/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both
the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3).
99. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and
to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life
. safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA-13, 24, 72 and 231-C.
100. . The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105).
R:\D P12004~543 Alvarez Properties Del RioIDraft COAs.doc
18
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
R:\O P\2004\04-0543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
19
101. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmillal dated April 13, 2005, a copy of
which is allached.
102. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmillal dated October 21, 2004, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Date
Applicant's Signature
Applicant's Printed Name
R:ID PI2OO4~543 Alvarez Properties Del RiolDraft COAs.doc
20
WARREN 0: WILLIAMS
. Gl;!oeral Manager-Chief Engineer
.' .-
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951. 788.9965 FAX
94197.1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
April 13,2005
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Matt Harris
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
P A 04-0543
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in
incorporated Cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases, or provide State Division of
Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such
cases are normally limited to items 'of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan
facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or
extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In
addition, information of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project. in detail and the following comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard,
public health and safety, or any other such issue:
The southwest boundary of the property is within the 100 year Zone AE floodplain limits for Murrieta Creek
as delineated on Panel No. 060742-0005B dated November 20, 1996 of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued
. in coltiunction with the National Flood Insurance Program, administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). A District flood study in 1987 determined the base flood elevation for the
master plan flow rate of36,300 cfs to be 1014.28 (NGVD 29) at the location.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers along with the District and the Cities of Temeculaand Murrieta are
working on the design of the Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration;and Recreation project
(Project), which has been Congressionally authorized. The proposed development is located within Phase 2 of
the Project, which is currently not scheduled to be constructed until June 2005, pending Federally allocated
funding. Questions regarding the Project may be addressed to Zlilly Smith of our office at 951.955.1299.
Until the proposed Project has been constructed, all new buildings should be f1oodproofed by elevating the
finished floor a minimum of 12 inches above the District's floodplain elevation of 1014.28. .
This project is also adjacent to Murrieta Creek MDP Line A. The District will accept ownership of such
facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan
check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees
will be required.
This project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creekffemecula Valley Area Drainage Plan
for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid prior to the issuance of building or
grading permits. Fees to be paid should beat the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
94197.1
City ofTemecula
Re: PA 04-0543
-2-
April 13, 2005
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State
Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be
given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a FEMA mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all
studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further .
require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation
or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
The applicant shall show written proof of compliance with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) for any drainage facilities the applicant proposes to be maintained by the District. All applicable
CEQA and MSHCP documents and permits shall address the construction, operation and maintenance of all
onsite and off site drainage facilities. Draft CEQA documents shall be forwarded to the District during the
public review period.
If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant
to obtain all applicable Federal, State and local regulatory permits. These regulatory permits include, but are I
not limited to: a Section 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with section
404 of the Clean Water Act, a California State Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement
in compliance with the Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq., and a 401 Water Quality Certification or a
Report of Waste Discharge Requirements in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or State
Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, respectively, from the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The applicant shall also be responsible for complying with all mitigation measures as required under CEQA
and all Federal, State, and local environmental rules and regulations.
Very truly yours,
~</4
ARTURO D1AZ
Senior Civil Engineer
c: Ron Parks, City ofTemecula
Zully Smith, RCFC & WCD
AM:blj
@
RadD
later
Board of Directon
John E.1IoaJIand
President
Caaha F. Ko
Sr. VlCII President
Stephen... Corolla
Ralph H. Daily
....R. _
LIsa D.1IermaD
MIchael R. McMllIan
~
BrlaDJ.Bracly
Genon!_
Pldlltp L Forbes
Director ofF'Uumce- Treasurer
&P. "Boh-Lemou
_of__
Peny B. Louck
eon.......
Linda M. Frecoeo .
Diatrict Sec:retalyfAdministrative
--
C. ........ Cowett
Best Best 8: Kriepr ILP
Genonl CounooI
October 21, 2004
/(0) m @[€ II [fJ fE rnl
UlJ OCT 2 5 2004 m
By_
Matt Harris, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
LOT NO.3 OF TRACT NO. 3751
APN 921-050-024; CITY PROJECT NO. P A04-0543
lALV ARE~ J,>ROPERTIESJ
Dear Mr. Harris:
Please be advised that the above-referenced praperty is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD); Water service,
therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or
off-site water. facilities and the 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. All
on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of
RCWD.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Micha G. Meyerpeter, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
04\MM:aU81IFCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Ranebo Califomla Water District
42135 W'mchester Road . Post Office Box 9017 . Temecula, California 92589-9017 . (951) 296-6900 . FAX (951) 296-6860
ITEM #3
. DATE OF MEETING:
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
RECOMMENDATION:
CEQA:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 6, 2006
Dana Schuma
. ,
TITLE: Associate Planner
Planning Application No. PAOS-Q389, a Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan to construct and operate an 8,780 square foot
church sanctuary, 4,600 square feet of classroom space, and an
existing 1,663 square foot local historic chapel on a 3.92 acre site
located at 28871 Santiago Road
181 Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
0" Recommend Denial
181 Categorically Exempt
o Notice of Determination
(Section)
(Class)
(Section)
15332
32 (In-fill)
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
OEIR
G:\Planningl2OO5lPA05-0389 TernecuIa Community Church - CUPlPlannlnglStaff Raper! PA05-0389.doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: Matthew Fagan Consulting
Date of Completion: December 15, 2005
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: September 6, 2006
General Plan Designation: Very Low Residential (VL)
Zoning Designation: Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (SP-2), Planning Area 19
- Very Low Residential (VL)
SitelSurroundingLand Use:
Site:
Existing religious institution consisting of a local historic chapel and four
modular structures
North:
South:
. East:
West:
Existing single-family residences
Existing single-family residences
Existing kindergarten and preschool facility
Existing school facility
Lot Area:
170,755 square feet/3.92 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
15,043 square feet/0.09 FAR
Landscape Area/Coverage:
51,629 square feet/32% coverage
Parking Required/Provided:
98 requiredl102 provided
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the
applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
An application for the Conditional Use Permit with a Development Plan was submitted on
December 15, 2005. A DRC meeting was held on January 26, 2006 to discuss site,
landscaping, architecture, and other departmental issues. The applicant submitted revised
plans on March 13, 2006. In late June, 2006, the applicant submitted the remaining
environmental reports and all project requirements were completed in July.
G:\Plannlng\2005\PAOs,0389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlanninglStaff Report PA05,0389.doc
2
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit
. The 3.92 acre site is zoned Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (SP-2). Section 1II.A.2.c of the
Rancho Highlands Specific Plan allows for the development of churches and church-related
uses in the Very Low Residential land use designation of Planning Area 19. The land use and
development standards for Planning Area 19 refer to County Ordinance 348; therefore, the
project reverts to, and is subject to the land use and development standards in the Very Low
Density Residential zone of the Development Code. The proposed religious facility is a
conditionally permitted use in the Very Low Density Residential zone within the City.
A religious facility is currently operating on site. The proposed project will expand the use
beyond that which exists today. The applicant provided il. "Statement of Operations" (attached)
for staff review in determining the appropriateness of the proposed use. The uses and hours
of operation to be approved with this request include:
Weekday uses (Monday through Friday)
. School, 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 180 students
. Office Administration, 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., 20 employees
Weekend uses (Sunday)
. Worship Services, 8:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 10:15 a.m. to 12 p.m., 200 people per
service .
Based on the Statement of Operations provided by the applicant, staff is recommending
several conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation and permitted activities.
Permitted activities include worship services and school operations during the specified times.
Any use not specified in the Statement of Operations may require the approval of a Temporary
Use Permit. Overnight activities/events associated with the church are not permitted onsite.
Worship services and/or school activities shall not operate concurrently and the project has
been conditioned that the maximum permitted capacity of the facilities at any given time shall
not exceed 200 (See Condition of Approval No. 19).
The surrounding properties have very similar use types as the proposed conditional use. To
the west of the site is an existing church and on the east is an existing school. There are
single-family residences on the north and south side of the property. . A noise study for the
project concluded that the church and school facilities adequately address noise impacts to the
adjacent residences through restricted hours of operation, site design, and screening.
Staff identified no major concerns in reviewing the proposed conditional use. The use is
consistent with the General Plan, as well as with the standards contained in the Rancho
Highlands Specific Plan and zoning requirements contained hthe Development Code.
G:\P1anningl2005\PACJ5.0389 Temecula Community Church. CUPlPlanninglSlaff Report PAOS-0389.doc
3
Develooment Plan
The project will consist of the removal of four modular structures and two sheds to
accommodate the addition of two new buildings; one will be 8,780 square feet and the other
4,600 square feet. The 8,780 square foot sanctuary building will be located on the western
portion of the site. The building will be 30 feet in height with a 5Hoot high steeple. It will
consist of a 3,137 square foot sanctuary and six classrooms. The other building, located on
the southwest portion of the site, will be 20.4 feet in height and used for classrooms Monday
through Friday. The existing 1,663 square foot local historic chapel is located on the eastern .
side of the site next to the proposed sanctuary. The chapel will hot be rehabilitated under this
development plan and will remain in its existing condition.
Site Plan
The project is consistent with all applicable development standards of the Very Low
Residential zoning district including lot-coverage, height, setback, landscaping and parking
requirements. The proposed 0.09 Floor Area Ratio is far below the target ratio of 0.20 for the
zoning district. The proposed 9 percent lot coverage is also below the maximum permitted lot
coverage of 20 percent.
The peak of the sanctuary building roof will be 30.6 feet and the peak of the steeple will be 57
feet. The maximum building height permitted in the VL zone is 50 feet; however, per
Development Code Section 17.34.010, if an integral part of the building is less than 5 percent
of the entire roof area it may exceed the maximum height requirement for the zone. The
project proposes to construct a 40 square foot steeple on 11,530 square feet of roof area. The
steeple is less than 1 percent (.003%) of the entire roof area and an integral part of the church
as it distinctly identifies a place of worship. Therefore, the steeple meets the intent of the code
requirement and will not have an adverse visual impact.
The sanctuary building will be located toward the center of the site with significant setbacks
from property lines that exceed minimum requirements including approximately 53 feet from
the west property line and 223 feet from adjacent residences along the south property line.
The other building will be 60 feet from the residences to the south and 10 feet from the
adjacent parking lot to the west. Significant landscaped setbacks will be provided between the
onsite parking area and adjacent property lines including a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along
the south property line and a 1 0' to 20' wide buffers along the other property lines.
Architecture
The new sanctuary and classroom buildings feature an expanded interpretation of colonial era
architecture, . particularly adhering to a traditional church design. The buildings have simple
roof geometry, emphasizing long horizontal lines, shallow roof pitches, and a dark asphalt
shingle roof material. The building architecture features three colors of smooth stucco
complemented by accent colors around the windows, on the doors, and along the gable.
Accenting columns with pronounced bases and capitals, vertical multi-paned windows, and
detailing trim help define the style and create focal points on the facades. The sanctuary
building is further enhanced with a fiberglass steeple placed atop the roof at the entryway. The
massing and scale of the new buildings is consistent with the surrounding development and
the colors and materials in harmony with the white historic chapel located on site.
G:\PIannlng\2OO5\PA05-0389 Temecula Community ChUM - CUPlPlanninglStaff Rapor! PAOS-o:l89.doc
4
Landscaoina
The landscape plan conforms to the requirements of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan
Design Guidelines and the Development Code. The landscaping plan provides ten species of
trees alid sixteen species of shrubs for the site. The perimeter of the site will be fully
landscaped and tree and shrub placement serve to effectively screen on-site parking areas
and soften building elevations from adjacent uses. The project will have 51,629 square feet or
32 percent of landscaping, which far exceeds minimum landscaping requirements. The trees
on the interior of the site complement the architecture and will consist of Silk Trees, London
Planes, Pink. Melalelicas, Carrot Woods, Snow Whites, European White Birches, Bronze
Loquats, Pink Flowering Plums, and Little Gems. The streetscape landscaping is compatible
with the adjacent species along Santiago including 24-inch box London Plane trees and 15
gallon Queen Palms.
Parkina
Development Code Section 17.24.040 requires one parking space per 35 square feet of
assembly area. The 3,137 square foot sanctuary and 6 classrooms in the church require 98
parking spaces and the historic chapel requires 28 spaces. Additionally, the other building
proposes 9 classrooms which require 13 parking spaces at a ratio of 1.5 spaces per
classroom. The project provides for 102 reciprocal parking spaces including 6 handicapped
accessible spaces and 4 motorcycle spaces. Additional spaces for the 9 classrooms and.
existing historic chapel are not necessary as the uses for all facilities occur at different times
and the parking for the most intensive use meets the parking requirement for each use.
Worship services will only occur on Sundays and school operations will only oCCur during the
week. Therefore, staff believes that there are no conflicts in the principal hours or peak
demand of the uses and the parking is sufficient for all joint uses.
Access. Circulation and Parkina
The proposed site plan provides adequate circulation for vehicles. The Department of Public
Works has analyzed the proposed traffic impact of the project and has determined that the
impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the previously approved
City of Temecula General Plan EIR and Rancho Highlands Specific Plan EIR. The Fire
Department has also reviewed the plan and determined there will be proper access and
circulation to provide emergency services to the site.
Staff has determined the project is consistent with the General Plan as well as with the Rancho
Highlands Specific Plan (SP-2) and development standards specified in Sections 17.06.040
and 17.06.050.N of the Development Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been
deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Section 15332, Class
32 ~ In-fill Development)
G:\PIamIngl2OO5\PAO!HJ389 Temecula Community Church - CUP\PIamlnglStaff Report PAOS-D389.doc
S
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's
General Plan, Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, and Development Code, and all applicable
ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use and Development Plan, PAOS-Q389, based
upon the findings and with the attached Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.04.010.El
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the general plan and the Development
Code.
The proposed use is conditionally permitted in the Vel}' Low Density Residential zoning
designation contained in the City's Development Code and consistent with the Vel}'
Low Residential land use designation contained in the General Plan and the Rancho
Highlands Specific Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned,
is physically suitable for the use type. The use, as conditioned, is also consistent with
other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes.
2. _ The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development
of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with adjacent land uses as defined in the
General Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed church facility against the adjacent land
uses and has determined that the proposed use will be a complimental}' addition to the
area. Additionally, the proposed use will not adversely affect, nor be affected by, any of
the surrounding properties as the adjacent uses are similar use types.
3. The site for a proposed ccinditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood.
Staff has reviewed the proposed conditional use to determine consistency with the
Development Code and has found that the project meets all of the applicable
requirements. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed
use without. affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other
development features required by the Development Code in order to integrate the use
with other uses on the site and in the neighborhood.
4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
G:\Plannlngl2OO5\PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church - CUP\PIanninglSlafl Report PAOS-0389.doc
6
Staff has reviewed the proposed conditional use and found that it in no way will be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. The project has
been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be . consistent with all
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
use will function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
Develooment Plan (Code Section 17.05.010Fl
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposed religious facility is permitted in the Vel}' Low Residential land use
designation contained. in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Vel}' Low Residential land
use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned,
and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The
pro;ect, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State.
law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the City Wide Design Guidelines; and fire and building codes.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare.
. The architecture proposed for the building is consistent with the Architectural
requirements as stated in the Design Guidelines and the Development Code. The
projeCt has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent
with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure
that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the
public health, safety and welfare.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 8
2. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 9
3. PC Resolution 06-_ -.Blue Page 10
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
4. Statement of Operations - Blue Page 11
G:\Plannlngl2OO5\PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlanninglStaII Report PA05-0389.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G:\PIannIng\2005\PAOS-0389 Temecula Community Church - CUP\PIanninglStaff Report PAOS-Q389.doc
. 8
/
'v/
. /
/
"""
',,-
""
.-'---
-~
"'"
300 Feel
a 75 150
II
I
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PLAN REDUCTIONS
G:\Plannlngl2OO5\PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlanninglStall Report PA~89.doc
9
__flA).
_flit).
-~-
11I_"'__11)_
~ III! =~"::
V hi. q~mqJ ~!lffimmoJ BJU:xlW:ll
-
-
~
'I -
.!..
II t:l..
. ~ .
VfV ""'nv 11 JOI\llA\
~ ' . lIb i !~I! ~I~ II! ,~ ~ .
~ I i j I ill! Iii! if i I; ;jil1'1 I I .! I!!~ i
~ Us hl5 ~ h II g I Ig~ii! ~~~llllli !i~U~ni;~ ~~~m~~!; i ~ '1';; 8 ~
~13 i.~3~ t311~ ~ I~!t~i ~IU~ ~ h~, p U l~W~i;! ~ 1I b
I I gl II Ihhl I U 11 ;WI mi'~1I1 hdlullh 1";11; II; Imlll~ i
Iii . ! r ~~ ;; .if~
AnVil 5 i i i~ ~d;;h
~:' $ ! i~l~i;~
~llll:i!ll~ illlll I! It!1 h!I.~1
I III !;~ II j1!llf ~ I
$
~t---l,
/.
-
-
.......;!tf~~ I
~......... I
t
I
c
.
.
,
~
( ,
, )
'<..
,-'
/ /
1
I, ~;::.
1 %
-<
'"
i
j
III
HI
lij
---
;:
,
. i
........ ~,....<ou>.... .- - '-- (ID -..........) R
~O< _ _ .:0' sZr. - ;,"':;;:; .- I../a.JOI../a lI:I!unwwoa ~ II I C\J
~ JoflaJ8 'J JJaq," BtnaaWB:J ~ t ~ <t:
~~~~~
hi} :J
~ aoB 60B s-as
--
I~ 1IIIilI
10 ".lILI'~' ~
jljlJiI!l'l!1
~iH!lg'lii!
-lh.B ,p.!
11~llidUI
.. ~ III... II .. .. .. III II
I.
i!
~.
II
d
,& .
II
II!- ~_.. .' ,- I ~ r-
{!... !- -- I :s
Ill- i- .. I... ;
I;; iI I ~
i!- !- .. I...! ~
I 111111 HI i .
11,lll!1 U III ~
N
i; i
I
i
"
. 11.
$
~ JJ1f1DI ~
,.... I" iAJ ..~
B ," I !'.__~J. . il
, .. L---f - ....J II..
;;-)I~H ,.
~
!i~ &
I~I I~
,~. I.
1I~ .
g
.
I
~ -1'1'
t... I
01 I
.ginnl
~~
~9 '~."
!l
~
..,
'.,
.,.
-""',
_(Jill.,.
-~-
1tI_"'__"_
€)" "'!
II
" lil,
qo.mq;) Al!lffiWUIO;) UJll::l:lW:l.L
-~-
---
VIV 'uo1lV 11 J:llJ1'M
. !' il I!! !
I' I Ii 11 ! ! 'i.! .! I! .
..111 II II !ll Illl'i I I il . illl Ii
d! lillll', II !!' II! Ii!! !l,i! II! I
~ !l, iill I, Iii Ili ! Iii d! 'I oJ
1111 !II II! !!i II! !ill! II iI! Ii II !Iii ill
8lIOlE!l@J"'EJIOI@BEl0B @!
.'----
~
-
II <";l
_I' ~
. - .
~
~
!
p
.~
I
1
r
~
Ii
J
=
El
I!I
_11_.
-....
_D_
llE_""'__Nl_
VIV 'u:l1N 11 JOJI"h\.
~1lI1
~
Ill.
...n_
...--
q:>mqJ Al!unmmoJ llJll:>:lW:ll
~
I
i
--
I
j
~
~
~_____________________________________________I d.
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ' ,
t _ I I
r-+ o?i: <-,
:a: ~ la'
---4lI' : '
I I ,~---~
I I , :
I .1
___~l / I I~___~
Ilal ( (/ :) I I
I' ~. I,' :..,
.;l--r- 1!..J, : {-": : J..~ -r--J
!i i bj . ~ bj ~--_:_- Jbj :
..,f f f 'T,-l
: d___J
~_________________________~________________________J
~
~
~
--
-
'I
II
. - .
-
.----------------------------..;.-
I;;]
<""l
~
p..
i
I, I 'i ·
I I !t i ! I . ,I!
1111 !I: i 11111 ,I II:! I!
II it 11111 il III II 11111 II II!. II
I !tl ~ll ~li ~ll !I ~ld ~ ~I!!i ~ !!d ~
I
i
~
~
~'.B7.
:~
I
I
i
H
:!fj'!~ij!
I !111!'J '
fl!lllill, : :
,1!d!lIIl 1 r .
. 9
I I . J
...' l I I
1$
~
~
~
-'
lL ,~
~ i'
<n i
,
, .
" )
v
~
.. -"
.. '" ------ ~-
. '/~n "" ,::..~ ".-;-;---
. . / !.1bl111IZ NtH !l /I/llfA '
r-I~e
I III P
-~-
I
is
Q::z
~:Sl Ii
Ua.! I:
~~"Ii
i~~:: I:
~II :
>- I
(.) j
~ I
~
~
~
J;;;
/
. i -
'! ! J n '
J!! Ii I! '0 ! i I q:l ~ i
fl- f. fl . r Pll, tt J l I~i 3>.!l
';11' I. ~J~
::i!! .~ ;11 B I~ llil
I~! I! II I.. _. n I i'~li~ . .~ ~
i!ll! b I II ' .iI J I Iii! ur
d
I!! I' I- fl I
Iff :f { ~ !~b
,11,1,1 r
; i~, ill iil . Il -.,.&
. , ~~I~
. '
't' ~il"
- . . I -tl. ~i~iil
i t; Ille
. "
I~ h
"1' :
// I
,
I
~
.
i
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
. PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
G:\Planning\2005\PA~9 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlannlnglSlaff Report PA~9.doc
10
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA05-o389, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A
CHURCH SANCTUARY AND SCHOOL FACILITY AND AN
EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC CHAPEL TOTALING 15,043
SQUARE-FEET
Section 1. On December 15, 2005 Matthew Fagan Consulting Services filed
Planning Application No. PA05-0389, in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code.
Section 2. The Application was processed including, but not . limited to a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
Section 3. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on September 6, 2006, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and
did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
Section 4. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
Section 5. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. .
Section 6. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 7. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E (Conditional Use Permit), and
as required by Section 17.05.010.F (Development Plan):
Conditional Use Permit
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code;
The proposed use is conditionally permitted in the. Vel}' Low Density Residential zoning
designation contained in the City's Development Code and consistent with the Vel}' Low
Residential land use designation. contained in the General Plan and the Rancho
Highlands Specific Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is
physically suitable for. the use type. The use, as conditioned, is also consistent with
other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will
not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures;
G:\PJanningl2OO5\PAOS-0389 Temecula Community Chwch - CUPlPJanningIPC RESOLUflON.doc
1
~-,._' ~- -. -'-
The proposed conditional use is compatible with adjacent land uses as defined in the
General Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed church facility against the adjacent land
uses and has determined that the proposed use will be a complimentary addition to the
area. Additionally, the proposed use will not adversely affect, nor be affected by, any of
the surrounding properties as the adjacent uses are similar use types.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, butter areas, landscaping,
and other development features prescribed in the development code and required by the
planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood; .
Staff has reviewed the proposed conditional use to determine consistency with the
Development Code and has found that the project meets all of the applicable
requirements. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed
use without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development
features required by the Development Code in order to integrate the use with other uses
on the site and in the neighborhood.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community;
Staff has reviewed the proposed conditional use and found that it in no way will be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. The project has
been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent . with all
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
use will function in a manner consistent with the public heafth, safety and welfare.
Develooment Plan
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City;
The proposed religious facility is permitted in the Very Low Residential land use
designation standards contained in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Ve,y Low Residential land
use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned,
and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare;
The architecture proposed for the building is consistent with the Architectural
requirements as stated in the Design Guidelines and the Development Code. The
project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with,
all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public
heafth, safety and welfare.
Section 8. Environmental Comoliance. The Planning Director finds in accordance
with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed use has been deemed to
G:\Planningl2OOSlPA05-ll389 Temecula Community Church - CUPIPIanniogIPC RESOumON.doc
. 2
be categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332,
In-fill Development Projects.
Section 9.. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves
the Application PA05-0389, all of the foregoing reasons and subject to the project specific
conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference
together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
Section 10. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 6th day of September 2006.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 05-0389 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of
September 2006, by the following vote:
AVES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\PIamIingI2OOS\PAOS.oo89 Temecula Community Church - CUi'IPIalmingIPC RESOUITlON.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
G:\PIanning\2005\PAOS-0389 TemecuIa Community Church - CUPIPIanningIPC RESOUITION.doc
. 4
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PAOS-0389
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to
construct and operate an 8,780 square foot church
sanctuary, 4,600 square feet of classroom space, and an
existing 1,663 square foot local historic chapel
Assessor's Parcel No.
922-130-016
MSHCP Category:
DIF Category:
TUMF Category:
Subject to MSHCP
Exempt
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Exempt
September 6, 2006
September 6, 2008
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-four Dollars ($64.00)
for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as
provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations
Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the
Planning Department the check as required above, the approvalforthe project granted shall
be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
G:lPlanning\2005\PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church. CUPlPlanning\Draft COAs.doc
1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:\Plannlngl2OO5\PA05-0089 TemeaJla Community Church - CUPIPlanning\Drah COAs.doc
2
Planning Department
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for
their files.
3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan.
5. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become
null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by
this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion,
or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
6. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three 1-year extensions of
time, one year at a time.
7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and
elevations contained on file with the Planning Department.
. 9. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials,
equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied
by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or
technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the
condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the
real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision
to the Planning Commission for its decision.
Material
Stucco
Roof Trim
Doors
Steeple
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Color
Cape Cod P-20, Glacier White P-100, Agate P-505
Wind Tunnel 30BB 10/150
Harvest Cranberry
00 White Deck 6
Estate Grey
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlannlng\Dralt COAa.doc
3
10. Any rehabilitation to the historic chapel on site will require Planning Department approval
and shall be carried out in accordance with the City of Temecula's Old Town Specific Plan
Care and Maintenance provision.
11. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
12. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8' X 10'
glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored
architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be
readable on the photographic prints.
13. Trash enclosures shali be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These.
shall be clearly labeled on site plan.
14. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
15. The applicant. shall comply with their Statement of Operations submitted December 15,
2005, on file with the Planning Department, unless superseded by these Conditions of
Approval.
16. Regular hours of operation shall be between 8:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. for Sunday worship
services, and Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. for school and administrative
operations. .
17. The Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to obtain
Temporary Use Permit approval for any use not specified iri the Statement of Operations.
18. No overnight activities/events shall be conducted onsite in association with the church
facility.
19. The maximum permitted capacity of this facility at any given time shall not exceed 200.
Worship services and/or school operations are not permitted to operate at the same time.
This maximum capacity is baSed on the number of parking spaces provided.
, .
Public Works Department
20. A Grading Permit for a precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
21. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
22. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24' x 36' City of Temecula mylars.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlanninglDmft COAs.doc
4
23. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent
post-construction water quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent
non-permitted runoff from discharging offsite or entering any storm drain system or receiving
water.
24. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to the City. The WQMP will
include site design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment
mechanisms.
Building and Safety Department
25. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 DisabledAccess
Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. .
26. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
27. Areceipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
28. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
29. Show all building setbacks.
30. Developments with Multi-tenant Buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house electrical
meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire
alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall
. clearly show on the. plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the
operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically
proposed.
31. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
32. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998).
33. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
34. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
35. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
36. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls itnot on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0389 Temecula C<lmmunlty Churoh. CUPlPlanninglDraII COAs.doc
5
37. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-21,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Govemment Holidays
38. Please be advised of the following shell building/complete building policy in the City of
T emecula when preparing plans for submittals. It is our recommendation that buildings with
a known tenant or occupant be submitted as a complete building. Please consider the
Building and Safety Department policy, attached as Exhibit 1, in determining the course of
your design work and subsequent submittal.
Fire Prevention
39. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
Califomia Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
40. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1600 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a
total fire flow of 2000 GPM with 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A).
41. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A cqmbination of on-site and off-site superfire hydrants (6" X
4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located
no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s}
. frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s}
in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2,
and Appendix III-B).
42. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water.supply on a pUbiic street, as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required (CFC 903.2).
.43. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2).
44. . Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1 ).
G:lPlanning\2005\PAO~389 TemeaJla Communlly Church - CUPlPlanning\Draft COAs.doc
6
45. AIVany manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC 902.4).
Community Services Department
46. The developer shall contact the City's franchised .solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction and demolition debris. Only the CitY's franchisee may haul construction and
demolition debris. .
47. The Applicant shall comply with the PUblic Art Ordinance.
G:lPlanningl2OO5\PA05-o:l89 Temecula CammuMy Church. CUPlPlanning\Draft COAs.doc
7
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlanninglDraft COAs.doc
8
Planning Department
48. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical
plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior
to final agreement with the utility companies.
49. Double detector check valves shall be either installed undergroundor internal to the project
site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the
Director of Planning.
50. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at hislher sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the
. Director of Planning."
Public Works Department
51. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
52. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
53. . A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address all soils conditions' of the site, and provide recommendations. for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
54. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
. including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, .shall be provided by the Developer.
G:\PlanningI2OO5\PA05-1l389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlanning\Draft COAs.doc
9
55. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading,
Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's
standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control.
56. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for
Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number
(WOlD) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of
construction activities.
57. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. . Department of Public Works
58. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
59. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. .
60. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
G:\Planning\2005\PAOS-o:l89 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlanninglDraft COAs.doc
10
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
G:\PlanningI2OO5\PA05-0089 Temecula Community Churdl- CUPlPlanninglDraft COAs.doc
11
Planning Department
61. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot to the Planning
Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar
Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not
adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees.
62. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved
conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number,
genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be
consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all
parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area.
c. Provide an agronomic soils report with the construction landscape plans.
d. One cOpy of the approved grading plan.
e. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
f. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigatioh (in accordance with approved plan).
g. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. .
h. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the
proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and
landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved
maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor
who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
i. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be
required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being
pressurized to .150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure.
The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-head
coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the
approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the
. Planning Department to schedule inspections.
63. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show
and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three foot' clear zone
around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen.
Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like
an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on
plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees.
64. A copy of Intemal Revenue Service form 501 (c)(3) verifying tax~exempt status is required
prior to building. permit issuance. If such form is not provided the project may be subject to
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and Development Impact Fees (DIF).
G:\Planning\2OO5\PA05-0089 Temecula Community Church- CUPlPlanninglDraftCOAs.doc
12
Public Works Department
65. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
Building and Safety Department .
Prior to Submittina for Plan Review
66. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
At Plan Review Submittal
67. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the Califomia Building Code Appendix 29.
68. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review.
.69.. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
70. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
Prior to Permit Issuance
71. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
Prior to Beainnina Construction
72. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction. .
Fire Prevention
73. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall fumishone copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1).
74. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs.GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
G:\Plannlngl2.OO5\PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlannlng\Dralt COAs.doc
13
75. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1).
76. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building{s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet
(CFC see 902).
Community Services Department
77. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-ll389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlanning\Draft COAs.doc
14
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:\Planning\2005\PAO~389 Temecula Community Church.- CUPlPlannlnglDraft COAs.doc
15
Planning Department
78. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant
shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from
view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is
determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet
walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the
developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof
element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning.
79. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
80. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one
. year from final certifiCate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation
system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the
bond shall be released upon request by the applicant.
81. . Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-
street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating
the following:
.Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with
disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed by teiephoning 951 696-3000:
82. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
three square feet in size.
83. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed
prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit.
84. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
. by this permit.
Public Works Department
85. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP
have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for
immediate implementation.
G:\P1anning\2005\PAO!Hl389 Temecula Community Church - CUP\P1anning\Draft COAs.doc
16
86. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho Califomia Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
87. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
88. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
Fire Prevention
89. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
90. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3).
91. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers. in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The
numerals shall be minimum twelve inches in height for buildings and six inches for suite
identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite
address on the rear door(s) (CFC 901.4.4).
92. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install afire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9).
93. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an' fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10).
94. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door (CFC 902.4).
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-ll389 Temecula Community Church. CUPlPlannlng\Drafl COAs.doc
. 17
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
G:\PIanning\2005\PA05-0089 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPfannlnglDralt COAs.doc
18
95. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated January 4, 2006, a copy of which is
attached.
96. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Califomia
Water District's transmittal dated December 23, 2005, a copy of which is. attached.
97. The applicant shall.comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated February 27, 2006, a. copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicanf s Signature
Date
Applicanfs Printed Name
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church. CUPlPlanning'Draff COAs.doc
19
. .
. .
O.2JUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. HEh;::.fH SERVICES AGENCY 0
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
January 4, 2006
City ofTemkuia Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Katie Lecomte
/(D)[E @ [E a W [Em
UI1 JAN 0 5 2006 01
By
RE: Development Plan No. PA05-0389
Dear Ms. Lecomte:
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit fro an addition of three
buildings to include a chapel, sanctuary, classroom and removal of modular and trellises. Although,
the site plan indicates that water and sewer services are existing we have no recent information in
regards water and sewer availability.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLWWlNG SHOULD BE
REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
Sincerely,
Martinez, Supern.smg Environmental Health Specialist
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional iequiremeots not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for
fmalDepartment ofEnviroamental Health clearance.
local Enforcement Agency. ro. Box 1280. Riverside, CA 92502-1280 . (9091955-8982 . FAX (9091 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
land Use and Water Engineering' ro. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (9091 955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Street 2nd Roor, Riverside, CA 92501
".e:.{Q~:~",^
~ ~[~ '-"'ATI':I'{
~ p,. ~~1~':;QI.~~lfrlIq
~SJna!JlI6J
Board of Directors
CsabaF. Ko
President
Ben R. Dnke
Sr. VICe President
Steph_ J. Corona
Rolph a......
Lisa D. Herman
John E. BoaeJand
Michael R. McMillan
0'""""
Brian J. Brady
General Manager
Phillip L Forbes
Assistant General Manager I
Chief Financial Officer
E.P. "Bob- Lemons
DirectorofEngineerinsl'
Peny B. Louck
DirectorofPJa.nning
Jeff D. Armstroag
Con...""
Kern Eo Garcia
DUtriot s.a.tuy
c. Michael Cowett
Be8t; Best " Krieger u..p
Genend eoun..I
December 23, 2005
Katie Lecomte
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post QfficeBox 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
~ ~~ ~ ; ;~~ W
By
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH
LOT NO.8 OF TRACT NO. 20591; APN 922-130-016
CITY PROJECT NO. PA05-0389 [MA'lTHEW FAGAN)
Dear Ms. Lecomte:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries
of Raricho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be
available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site water facilities
and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property
owner.
If fife protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingeIit upon the property owner signing an Agency
Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering. Services
Representative at this office at (951) 296-6900. .
. Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
/YI."-.J/J/,. .
I ~i:;~~"M~yerpeter, P. .
Development Engineering Manager
05\MM:lm 123\FEG
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Rancho California Water District
42135 Winchester Road. Post Office Bol: 9017 . Temecula, California 92589-9017 . (951)296-6900 . FAX (951)29&6860
www.ranchowater.eom
FEB-2?-2006 15:51
ARU '':/ANTHRO UCR
951 82? 5469
P.02/02
EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER
CAUFORNIA HISTORICAl ReSOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM
Department of Anthropology, University of Califomkl, Riverside, CA 92521-<>418
(951) 827-5745 - Fox (951) 827-5409 - eickw@ucr.edu
Inyo, Mono, and Riverside Counties
February 27; 2006
TO: veronica'McCoy or Katie Lecomte
City of Temecula Planning Department
RE: Cultural Resource Review
Case: PAOS-0389/Temecula Community Church CUP
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project areA has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contllins or is adjacent to known
cultural resource(s). ' A Phase I study Is recommended.
L Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase
I study is recommended.
A Phase I cultural resource study (RI-
) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of contalnlng, cultural resources. However, due to the narure
of the project or prior data recovervstudles, an adverse effect on cultural resources Is not antldpated. Further
study is n,ot recommended.
JL A Phase I cultural resource study (part of Rl-l 048) Identified no cultural resources within the boundaries of the
project area.
There is a low probability of cul~ra1 resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted In the immediate
l!"ea while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a
profeSSional archaeologist.
.Jt...- The submission of a cUlturai resource management report is recommended following guidelines for
Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation,
PreselVatlon Planning Bulletin 4(N, December 1989.
.Jt. Phase I . Records search and field survey
_ Phase II Testing [Evaluate resource Significance; propose mitigation measures for .significant" sites.)
_ Phase III Mitigation [Data rec;overy by excavation, preservation In place, or a combination of the two.)
_ Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS: The project area was examined in a non-systematic manner. It is recommend~
that the project area be surveyed systematically.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
EXHIBIT 1
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT POLICY
G:lPlanningI2OO5\PAO!Hl389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlanninglDraft COAs.doc
20
Page I of3
CITY OF TEMECuLA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
DESCRIPTION: Shell Buildings
APPROVED BY: Anthony J. Elmo, Director of Building and Safety
REPLACES: 5130/2003
Acceptance of Construction Plans for new commercial buildings shall fit one of the two
(2) following categories:
Shell Building
Complete Building
DEFINITIONS
Shell Buildinl!- a shell building is one that does not support occupancy. It may be a
building built for speculation or built prior to finalization of lease agreements and/or
tenant improvement plans.
A Shell Building is comprised of :
Finalized exterior walls
Finalized roof diaphragm and roof covering, and may contain;
Lobby
Corridors
Core Restroom Facilities
Stairshafts
Elevators
Mechanical Equipment mounted on roof (no distribution)
ComDlete Buildinl!- a complete building is one that can support occupancy. It also may
be built for speculation but has all components in place to support occupancy.
, '
, '
,
A Complete Building is comprised of:
Finalized exterior walls
Finalized roof diaphragm and roof covering
Created on 06/03/2003 9:59 AM
C:\Documents and Settings\Dana.Weaver\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK966\shell buildings.doc
Page 2 of 3
Core Restroom facilities
Complete lighting and mechanical distribution systems
Complete automatic fire sprinkler and alarm system, and may have:
Lobby
CorridorS
Stairshafts
Elevators
MINIMUM PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Shell Buildine
Soils Report
Structural Frame
Underground Plumbing Plan
Underground Electrical Plan
Electrical Switchgear Plan
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Plan
Mechanical Equipment Roof Mount Layout Only
Landscape/Irrigation Plan (separate submittal)
. Complete Buildine
Soils Report
Structural Frame! Architectural Plan
Complete Plumbing Plan and schematics
Complete Electrical Plan and Load Calcs
Complete Mechanical and Energy Plans
Automatic Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Plans
Landscape and Irrigation Plan (separate submittal)
RELEASE QF UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
Shell Buildine- House Meter Only
Building Shall Be Weatherized
Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Shall Be Operational and Accepted
Fire Department Access Provided
Exterior Shell and Site Improvements Shall Be Complete
Interior Elements Shall Be Deemed Safe as Determined by Building Inspector
Complete Buildine-House Meter Only
All Building and Site Construction Shall Be Completed or Deemed Safe by the Building
Inspector
All Project Conditions of Approval Shall Be Complete and Accepted by the Conditioning
City Department
Created on 06/03/2003 9:59 AM
. C:\Documents and Settings\Dana.Weaver\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK966\shell buildings.doc
Page 3 of 3
RELEASE OF TENANT IMPROVEMENT PERMIT
Shell Buildinl!- Release of Tenant Improvement Permit will Not Be Issued Until After
the Release of the House Electrical Meter
Complete Buildinl!- Release of Tenant Improvement Permit will Not Be Granted Until
Approval of Building Shell Energy Inspection (framing, rough M,P&E {if applicable}
and insulation). .
Any variance to these requirements must be submitted in writing to the Director of
Building and Safety for consideration.
Created on 06/03/2003 9:59 AM
C:IDocuments and SettingsIDana.Weaver\Local Settings\Temporary Internet
Files\OLK966\shell buildings.doc
ATTACHMENT NO.4
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
G:\Plannlng\2005\PAOS-0389 Temecula Community Church - CUPlPlannlnglStaff Raport PAOS-Q389.doc
11
Statement of Operations
Temecula Community Church
1. Hours and days of Operation.
School:
Office/Administration:
Worship Services:
Monday-Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Monday-Friday: 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sunday: 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 10:15
. a.m. to 12:00 noon
2. Number of Employees.
Fifteen (15) full-time employees and five (5) part-time employees.
) 3. Amount of Required Parking.
The amount of required parking for the proposed use has been included in
the overall parking for the entire site and based upon the most intensive use
of the site, which is during the Sunday morning Worship Services. According
to the Temecula Development Code, the following parking is required and
provided for the project:
Total required
Total provided
99 spaces, of which 4 are handicapped parking ·
spaces (1 must be van accessible)
90 standard spaces, 6 handicapped parking
spaces, 4 motorcyCle spaces, and 6 bicycle.
spaces. A credit of 4 standard parking spaces
is granted for the provision of the motorcycle
and bicycle spaces.
4. Amount of Average Daily Trips Generated.
Temecula Community Church is currently in operation and has approximately
102 students that attend the school during the week. The bell times are listed
above. The proposed project will increase the number of students to 180 at
build out, which is anticipated to be in the year 2011. The bell times will not
change.' Approximately 250 people attend the Sunday Worship Service (125
. per service). This will increase to 400 people (200 per service); however,
since the Worship Services are on Sunday, any trips associated' with this
activity are considered off-peak. No traffic study is anticipated due to the
existing level of service during the week and off-peak traffic generated on
Sunday.
1
5. Type of Equipment or Process Used.
The specific types of equipment or processes used can be anticipated to be
similar to those associated with other Church Facilities.
6. Use of Hazardous Materials.
Chemicals used during the construction phases of development (grading and
building) will be similar in nature to those used on all construction projects
within the industry and the Temecula area. None of these are anticipated to
be more unusual or hazardous than those used on other construction
projects.
The types of chemicals used on-site once the Church Facility is occupied will
be consistent with those comrnonly found in most church facilities. Any
hazardous chemicals (i.e., motor oils, paints, landscaping, etc.) will be used in ..
modest quantities and will be disposed of at the appropriate locations.
7. Other Descriptions That Effectively Describe the Proposed Use.
None.
2
ITEM #4
;:
CrrvOF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Cheryl Kitzerow, Associate Planner
Matt Peters, AICP, Associate Planner
DATE: September 6, 2006
SUBJECT: Planning Application No. PA06-Q197, Temecula Regional Center Development
Agreement Amendment.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the Temecula Regional
Center Development Agreement an additional three years to provide for the future development of
the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan. Language regarding the applicability of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) to future mall development is also proposed in the amended Development Agreement.
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 1996 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 96-24 approving a Development
Agreement for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Area. The Development Agreement
was for a term of ten years from the effective date of the Ordinance, or January 16,1997. The
current agreement is scheduled to expire on January 16, 2007. On June 15, 2006, Forest City
Development submitted a request to amend the Regional Center Development Agreement to extend
the term of the agreement three years so that the new expiration date will be January 16, 2010.
Staff is also proposing additional language for the Development Agreement to clarify the applicability
of TUMF for future mall development.
ANALYSIS
This amendment proposes the following changes to the Development Agreement:
Section 13 is amended as follows.
"Extension of Term of Development Agreement. The term of the Development Agreement is
extended for a period of three (3) years and will now terminate on January 16, 2010."
Section 6b(3)(v) is added to the Development Agreement to read as follows:
"For any Development Plan approved after January 16, 2007, the Developer shall pay the
required Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee as required by Chapter 15.08 of the
Temecula Municipal Code. Development Plans approved on or before January 16, 2007 are
. exempt from the payment of TUMF pursuant to Section 15.08.040F.4.of the Temecula
Municipal Code as this is the period during which the original Development Agreement was
in effect. TUMF shall be paid at the time of approval of a Development Plan unless the
conditions of approval of the Development Plan provide otherwise."
G:IPIanningI2OO6\A06-0197 Mall Da Amendment\PIaJming\PC Staff Report.doc
1
With regard to Section 6b(3)(v), the City's new TUMF Ordinance adopted in 2005 provides in
Section 15.08.040F.4. that, "Development Agreements which were entered into prior May 28,2003,
the effective date of the original TUMF ordinance, are exempt from TUMF." Thus, the Mall
Development Agreement approved on December 17, 1996, and any development plans approved .
pursuant to it, are exempt from TUMF.
However, this section further states, "If the term of such a Development Agreement is extended by
amendment or by any other manner after May 28,2003, the effective date of Ordinance No. 03-01
[the original TUMF Ordinance], the TUMF shall be imposed.' This means that TUMF will apply to
the extended Mall Development Agreement, or any development plan approved after January 16,
2007, which is the expiration date of the originalDevelopment Agreement. .
All other provisions of the existing Development Agreement remain unchanged.
CEOA DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') and the City's local CEQA
Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for
the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263, approved by the Council as EIR No. 340 on
October 11, 1994, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, and the
subsequent environmental reviews required as mitigation measures identified therein. Based on
that review, staff determines that the proposed First Amendment does not require the preparation of
a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration as none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist.
Specifically, staff also determines that the proposed First Amendment does not involve significant
new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new
information of substantial importance which shows that the First Amendment will have one or more
significant effects not previously discussed in the FEIR. All potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed First Amendment are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, and the
mitigation measures contained in the FEIR will reduce those impacts to a level that is less than
significant. An Addendum pursuant to Section15164 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.
15164) is therefore the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the First Amendment, and no
additional environmental documentation is required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the
Development Agreement Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution 06-_- Blue Page 3
Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement Amendment
2. Draft CC Ordinance 06-_ - Blue Page 4
Exhibit A - Draft Development Agreement Amendment
3. Temecula Regional Center specific Plan Area Reference Map - Blue Page 5
4. Applicant's Request Letter - Blue Page 6
5. CEQA Initial Study - Blue Page 7
6. EIR Addendum - Blue Page 8
G:IPIanningI2006\PAOIHlI97 Mall Da AmendmentIPIanning\PC Staff Report.dOc
2
"'"
)
!
!
~~~
1/
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PC RESOLUTION 06-_
G:\PIannin&\2OO61PA06-0197 Mall Da AmendmentIPlanningIPC Staff RepoI1.doc
3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AND TEMECULA TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES,
L.P." FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE
PROMENADE MALL LOOP ROAD BOUND BY WINCHESTER
ROAD TO THE NORTH, MARGARITA ROAD TO THE EAST,
OVERLAND ROAD TO THE SOUTH AND YNEZ ROAD to THE
WEST (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0197)
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. The City of Temecula ("City"), a general law City in the State of California, Forest
City Development California, Inc., a California Corporation, and LGA-7, Inc., an Illinois
Corporation, entered into a Development Agreement dated December 17, 1996 for the
development of the Temecula Regional Center ("Development Agreement"). Temecula Towne
Center Associates, L.P., a California limited partnership is the successor-in-interest to Forest
City Development California, Inc.'s rights and obligations under the Development Agreement;
B. . On June 15, 2006, Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., filed Planning
Application No. PA06-0197, a Development Agreement Amendment, in a manner in accord with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
C. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law; .
D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and
environmental review on September 6, 2006, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify
either in support or in opposition to this matter;
E. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the attached
Development Agreement Amendment subject to and based upon the findings set forth
hereunder;
F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval
of the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that:
A. The First Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan, and each
Element thereof and constitutes a present valid exercise of the City's police power.
G:\PJanning\2OO6\PA06-0197 Mall Da Amendmenl\PlamiingIPC Resnlutinn with Pf cbanges.OOC
1
B. The First Amendment is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with
the requirements of Government Code Section 65867. .
Section 3. Environmental Comoliance. Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has
considered the proposed First Amendment. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and
considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan No. 263,. approved by the Council as EIR No. 340 on October 11, 1994, including
the impacts and mitigation meaSllres identified therein, and the subsequent environmental
reviews required as mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review, the Planning
Commission recommends that the proposed First Amendment does not require the preparation
of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration as none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162)
exist. Specifically, the Planning Commission also recommends that the proposed First
Amendment does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline
environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance
which shows that the First Amendment will have one or more significant effects not previously
discussed in the FEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed First
Amendment are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, and the mitigation measures
contained in the FEIR will reduce those impacts to a level that is less than significant. An
Addendum pursuant to Section15164 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is
therefore the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the First Amendment, and no
additional environmental documentation is required.
Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 06-_ amending the Temecula
Regional Center Development Agreement per Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
G:\Planning\2OO6\PA06-Q197 Mall Da Amendment\P1anning\PC Resolution with PI' changes.DOC
2
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 6th day of September 2006.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 06- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of
September 2006, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0197 Mall Da Amendment\P1anning\PC Resolution with Pf changes.DOC
3
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
G:\Planningl2OO6\PA06-0197 Mall Da AmendmenllPIanningIPC Resolution with PT changes.DOC
4
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to the Development Agreement ("First Amendment") is dated for
identification purposes as of September 12, 2006, and is entered into by and between the City of
Temecula ("City"), a general law city in the State of California, and Temecula Towne Center
Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership ("Developer"). The City and Developer are
sometimes referred to as a "Party" or collectively as "Parties."
RECITALS
A. The City, Forest City Development California, Inc., a California Corporation, and
LGA-7, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, entered into a Development Agreement
dated December 17, 1996 for the development of the Temecula Regional Center.
B. As recited in the Development Agreement, Forest City Development California,
Inc. was contractually entitled to acquire two parcels, described in the
Development Agreement as the "Mall Parcel" and the "Power Center Parcel",
from LGA-7, Inc.
C. After the execution ofthe Development Agreement, Forest City Development
California, Inc. transferred the "Mall Parcel" to Temecula Towne Center
Associates, L.P. ("Developer"), the successor-in-interest to Forest City
Development California, Inc.'s rights and obligations under the Development
Agreement.
D. The City and Developer now wish to modifY the Development Agreement to
extend the term of the Development Agreement by three (3) years.
NOW THEREFORE, the Development Agreement is hereby modified and amended as follows:
1. Extension of Term ofDevelooment Agreement. The term of the Development
Agreement is extended for a period of three (3) years and will now terminate on
January 16, 2010. Section 13 of the Development Agreement is amended and
restated to read in its entirety as follows:
"Term of the Agreement. This Agreement shall become
operative and commence upon the Effective Date unless the
Agreement is terminated, modified, or extended upon
mutual written consent of the parties hereto or as otherwise
provided in this Agreement. Following the expiration or
termination of the term, hereof, this Agreement shall be
deemed terminated and of no further force and effect;
provided, such expiration or termination shall not
automatically affect any right of the City, Developer or
Owner arising from City approvals on the Property prior to
the expiration or termination of the term and arising from
the duties ofthe parties as prescribed in this Agreement."
912867.2 August 18, 2006
1
2. Section 6b(3)(v) is hereby added to the Development Agreement to read as
follows:
"v. For any Development Plan approved after January 16,
2007, the Developer shall pay the required Transportation Uniform
. Mitigation Fee as required by Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula
Municipal Code. Development Plans approved on or before
January 16, 2007 are exempt from the payment ofTUMF pursuant
to Section 15.08.040F.4.ofthe Temecula Municipal Code as this is
the period during which the original Development Agreement was
in effect. TUMF shall be paid at the time of approval of a
Development Plan unless the conditions of approval of the
Development Plan provide otherwise."
3. All other provisions of the Development Agreement remain unchanged.
4. The Recitals are incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date first
written above.
CITY OF TEMECULA,
A CALIFORNIA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W.Jones, MMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
912867.2 August 18, 2006
2
TEMECULA TOWNE ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
, ,
912867.2 August 18, 2006
3
ATTACHMENT NO.2
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE 06-_
G:\PIanning\2006\P AOlHlI97 Mall Da Amendmenl\Planning\PC Staff Report.doc
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA TOWN CENTER
ASSOICATES, L.P.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find,
determine and declare that: .
A. The City of Temecula ("City"), a general law city in the State of California,
Forest City Development California, Inc., a California Corporation, and LGA-7, Inc., an
Illinois Corporation, entered into a Development Agreement dated December 17, 1996
for the development of the Temecula Regional Center ("Development Agreement").
Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., a California limited partnership is the.
successor-in-interest to Forest City Development California, Inc.'s rights and obligations
under the Development Agreement.
B. Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., filed Planning Application No.
PA06-0197 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code for the extension of the Development Agreement for an additional three years to
January 16, 2010.
C. Government Code Section 65864 authorizes the City to enter into binding
development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real.
. property for the development of such property in order to, among other matters: ensure
high quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans; provide certainty in
the approval of development projects so as to avoid the waste of resources and the
escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer; provide
assurance to the applicants for development projects that they may proceed with their
projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and subject to
conditions of approval, in order to strengthen the public planning process and
encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and
public economic costs of development; and provide for economic assistance to Owner
for the entitlements authorizing development related improvements.
D. On September 6,2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed First Amendment to the
Development Agreement ("First Amendmenf') at which time all persons interested in the
proposed First Amendment had the opportunity and did address the Planning
Commission on this matter.
E. Following consideration of the entire record of iliformation received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed First Amendment, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2006- ~ recommending to the City Council
approve the proposed First Amendment.
F. On September 12, 2006 the City Council of the City of Temecula held a
duly noticed public hearings on the proposed First Amendment at which time all persons
interested in the proposed First Amendment to the Development Agreement had the
opportunity and did address the City Council on this matters.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula further finds, determines
and declares that:
A. On October 11, 1994, the City Council approved and certified Final
Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
No. 263 (EIR No. 340). Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Guidelines section 15164(a) (14 Cat Code of Regs. ~15000 et. seq.), the City of
Temecula has prepared this Addendum to make a minor change to a previously
certified EIR in connection with the amendment of the Development Agreement and the
construction of the Final Phase of the Specific Plan.
B. The City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the extension of
the Development Agreement or coristruction of the final Phase of the Specific Plan
triggered any of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA
Guidelines which require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. The
City hereby incorporated the Initial Study as part of this Addendum. The Initial Study
evaluated the impacts of the proposed extension of the Development Agreement on
Land Use and Planning, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Population and
Housing, Transportation/Circulation, Water, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral
Resources, Cultural .Resources, Recreation, Aesthetics, Geophysical, Hazards, Noise,
Air Quality and Mandatory Findings of Significance.
C. The Initial Study compared the environmental impacts of the proposed
extension of the Development Agreement with the identified environmental impacts of
the approved Development Agreement evaluated in the previously certified Temecula
Regional Center EIR. The analysis in the Initial Study indicates that no new significant
effects will be caused by proposed extension to the Development Agreement and
subsequent construction of the final phase of the Specific Plan. . Nor will the proposed
extension to the Development Agreement increase the severity of any previously
identified significant impact. The impacts will remain the same as analyzed in the
Temecula Regional Center EIR.
D. The Initial Study also analyzed whether new circumstances would result in
new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Initial
Study found that no new circumstances exist that introduce new significant effects or
increase the severity of previously identified significant effects.
I
E. Further, the Initial Study analyzed whether new information exists that
indicates that the project would introduce new significant effects or increase the severity
of previously identified significant effects, or whether any new information suggests new
mitigation measures or shows that the mitigation measures previously identified as
infeasible are in fact feasible. The Initial Study found no new information that suggested
new significant effect or increased the severity of previously identified effects. Nor did
any new information suggest new mitigation measures or suggest that mitigation
measures previously identified as infeasible were in fact feasible.
F. Because the Initial Study finds no new significant effects, no increase in
the severity of previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change
in the mitigation measures previously discussed, the City Council finds that a
supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on
the Addendum to approve the proposed extension to the Development Agreement and
the construction of the Final Phase of the Specific Plan..
G. The City Council finds that the Initial Study and Addendum were prepared
in compliance with CEOA. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the Initial
Study and Addendum prepared for the proposed extension to the Development
Agreement and the construction of the Final Phase of the Specific Plan. The City
Council further finds that the conclusions reached in the Initial Study and Addendum
represents the independent judgment of the City Council.
H. The custodian of .records for the Initial Study and. FEIR for the
Development Agreement and Specific Plan No. 263, the Addendum and all other
materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's
decision is based, is the Planning Department of the City of Temecula. Those
documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at
Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
I. The First Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan, and each
Element thereof and constitutes a present valid exercise of the City's police power.
J. The First Amendment is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance
with the requirements of Government Code Section 65867.
K. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves certain
agreement entitled "First Amendment to Development Agreement by and Between the
City of Temecula and Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P." and authorizes the
Mayor to execute said agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 4. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
Section 5. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be
published and posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading
at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , ,
and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0197 Mall Da Amcndment\Planning\PC Resolution with PT changes.DOC
4
flRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to the Development Agreement ("First Amendment") is dated for
identification purposes as of September 12,2006, and is entered into by and between the City of
Temecula ("City"), a general law city in the State of California, and Temecula Towne Center
Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership ("Developer"). The City and Developer are
sometimes referred to as a "Party" or collectively as "Parties."
RECITALS
A. The City, Forest City Development California, Inc., a California Corporation, and
LGA-7, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, entered into a Development Agreement
dated December 17, 1996 for the development of the Temecula Regional Center.
B. As recited in the Development Agreement, Forest City Development California,
Inc. was contractually entitled to acquire two parcels, described in the
Development Agreement as the "Mall Parcel" and the "Power Center Parcel",
from LGA-7, Inc.
C. After the execution of the Development Agreement, Forest City Development
California, Inc. transferred the "Mall Parcel" to Temecula Towne Center
Associates, L.P. ("Developer"), the successor-in-interest to Forest City
Development California, Inc. 's rights and obligations under the Development
Agreement.
D. The City and Developer now wish to modify the Development Agreement to
extend the term of the Development Agreement by three (3) years.
NOW THEREFORE, the Development Agreement is hereby modified and amended as follows:
1. Extension of Term ofDevelooment Agreement. The term of the Development
Agreement is extended for a period of three (3) years and will now terminate on
January 16, 2010. Section 13 of the Development Agreement is amended and
restated to read in its entirety as follows:
"Term ofthe Agreement. This Agreement shall become
operative and commence upon the Effective Date unless the
Agreement is terminated, modified, or extended upon
mutual written consent of the parties hereto or as otherwise
provided in this Agreement. Following the expiration or
termination ofthe term, hereof, this Agreement shall be
deemed terminated and of no further force and effect;
provided, such expiration or termination shall not
automatically affect any right of the City, Developer or
Owner arising from City approvals on the Property prior to
the expiration or. termination of the term and arising from
the duties of the parties as prescribed in this Agreement."
912867.2 August 18, 2006
1
2. Section 6b(3)(v) is hereby added to the Development Agreement to read as
follows:
"v. For any Development Plan approved after January 16,
2007, the Developer shall pay the required Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee as required by Chapter 15.08 of the. Temecula
Municipal Code. Development Plans approved on or before
January 16, 2007 are exempt from the payment ofTUMF pursuant
to Section 15.08.040F.4.ofthe Temecula Municipal Code as this is
the period during which the original Development Agreement was
in effect. TUMF shall be paid at the time of approval of a
Development Plan unless the conditions of approval of the
Development Plan provide otherwise."
3. All other provisions of the Development Agreement remain unchanged.
4. The Recitals are incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date first
written above.
CITY OF TEMECULA,
A CALIFORNIA
Ron Roberts, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
912867.2 August 18, 2006
2
TEMECULA TOWNE ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
912867.2 August 18, 2006
3
ATTACHMENT NO.3
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AREA MAP
G:lPlanning\2006\P A06-0j 97 Mall Da Amendtnent\PlanningIPC Staff Report.doc
5
)j IlrltJ:/;{j,~~ &K'Z / /~JJ}; ~ ~ (;; jl!r: <
~'/ ~ ~ "I- ~,~~~ ~\~
JJ f:I ,f~
/:Y if 1)/j0:-)~
I ~ ~~ '//' :/ '?' / ~ 7 r ~ Wzf
//~ ~~~~ ~ ))~~?
~//' 10. ~' ~
I /'_______~"'- / I~ ~'> / v' ~ c:--
V~~ f-,Z %^)y ~1.< CJ~" '<::
~, ~ / Y >::; (\):'\[1_1=1'-( "
_________ ~ '/ /<2 'J ~ ?J: J. -= t-y
------- ~
~ ''''\ t: >>Y U1ll ---"-
~ ~~' (\, ~LL-~
/' 'y -:S;i ~y ~v 0 ~';i' ~
-
// //~N/ "yV '\~ ~ li ~
',( 'h # / lt1]:----
' /'y '/ / l:::
"/ /0/.) <r-~~
1\ ' "'/,/ ~ / "" r L
~ '" v~/~!' ~;~ ^" === ~ (
-- / >~"~.c~ ~ N') ~ / '<
-- '<() / '" /: ~ J ProjectSite I\ ':/ hUl?-,
K ,-- , .A\ \} -c- 1-1 L
~ ~ ~ \ / ~~ f ~
~tJ ~t-~v ~ "I
~/(1 i:::;::::V>' ,1' \ I.
'(~ ~ '0..\C I~I/~ 8 TGRV,\ c
'?~' ~UCI--', I!lll II
f Y -., \- ~r
\"''''')// ~~\" k.
~ cI:::
cr" \::::j \\1\ It--.
v: T\ \. -----=
v.. ~~::;:::T 11.0
-; -------\ \\,~ E W,
/~ l- \ \\\~ ~ \'JFC: --
// r--\ /Kcy ~ ::~
" / &)i~~ ~~}/{
· · ~ ,} · ". \<<:?~\ <Iff' "~~("
/ A [ 2::l\.....L.'l \ V- ~ '.\; ~
/
/
/
/
,~
'" /'
/
//
/,
ATTACHMENT NO.4
APPLlCANrS REQUEST LETTER
G,IPIanning\2006\P A06-0197 Mall Da AmendmentlPIanningIPC Staff Reporl.dnc
6
FORESTCITY
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
KENNETH LEE
Vice President
July 26, 2006
Mr. Shawn Nelson
City Manager
. City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Request for Development Agreement extension for the Promernide Mall
Dear Shawn,
Please take this letter as our request for a three year extension of the subject Development
Agreement. We are making this request in response to the merger of the Federated
Department Stores and RobMay Department stores, so that we can properly asses the
expansion program and move forward with the project.
Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
c;(.e-~(-
Kenneth Lee
Vice President Development
cc: Brian Jones
Dimitri Vazelakis
David Gordon
Tony Canzoneri
Forest City Development California. Inc., 949 S. Hope Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90015
Phone: (213) 488-0010 Fax: (213) 488,9308
ATIACHMENT NO.5
CEQA INITIAL STUDY
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAQ6-j)197 Mall D. AmetidmentIPlanninglPC Staff Reportdoc
7
INITIAL STUDY
FOR
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
AND
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PHASE
Prepared for:
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Prepared by:
Tom Dodson & Associates
2150 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92405
August 2006
City of T emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION............................................................................... 1
II. PROJECT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 1
III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................... 10
IV. DETERMINATION ..................................................................................................... 10
V. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST REFERENCES ............................................ 12
VI. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST & DISCUSSION ......................................,.... 14
1. Land Use & Planning ........................................................................................ 14
2. Public Services............................................................................................... ... 16
3. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................ 19
4. Population & Housing ....................................................................................... 22
5. Transportation I Circulation............................................................................... 23
6. Water.................................................................................................................. 26
7.. Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 28
8. Energy and Mineral Resources ........................................................................ 30
9. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 32
10. Recreation .......................................................................................................... 33
11. Aesthetics.......................................................................................................... 34
12. Geophysical ...................................................................................................... 36
13. Hazards ............................................................................................................. 38
14. Noise .............................................................................................................. ... 40
15. Air Quality ....................................................................... ................................... 42
16. Mandatory Finding of Significance.................................................................... 43
17. Department of Fish and Game 'De Minimis' Impact Findings .......................... 45
18. Earlier Analyses .......................................................................,........................ 45
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 : Specific impacts that are unavoidable are listed on page which is reproduced as
Attachment 1 to this document
Temecula RegIonal Center
Initial StudylO83106
-il-
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES
Figure 1
Regional Location
Figure 2
Site Location
Temecula RegIonal Center
Initial Study!083106
-iii-
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Initial Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency:
Address:
3. Contact Person:
Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
Temecula Regional Center First Amendment to Development
Agreement and Final Development Phase
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Don Hazen, Principal Planner
City of Temecula
(951) 694-6400
The proposed project is an amendment to extend a Development
Agreement and the final phase of development within the 179 acre
(excluding roads) Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP No.
263) in the City of Temecula bound by Winchester Road to the north,
Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez
Road to the west within an unsectioned area of Township 7 South,
Range 3 West San Bernardino Meridian on the USGS Murrieta
Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map (see Figures 1 and
2).
5. Project Description Summary:
A proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the Temecula
Regional Center Development Agreement an additional three years to provide for the future
development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the T emecula
Regional Center Specific Plan.
6. Project Sponsor:
Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P.
II. PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Background, Purpose, and Need
The City of Temecula proposes to extend a Development Agreement (due to expire in January
2007) for a period of three years to expire on January 16, 2010, for subsequent construction of the
final phase of retail commercial space and parking facilities within the Temecula Regional Center
core commercial area in an area currently existing as a paved parking lot. The proposed project
would be developed within Planning Area 2 of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 263)
located primarily between the current Macys department store and Edwards Cinema and also on
the north side of the Edwards Cinema within the current core shopping area. The existing Regional
Center currently has 2,117,545 square feet of existing and approved development. The approved
Specific Plan for the Temecula Regional Center allows up to 2,483,000 square feet of development.
The extension of the Development Agreement would continue the agreement with the City under
Temecuta Regional Center
Initial StudylO831 06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
which the development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the
Specific Plan would be implemented.
In 1993 the City of Temecula certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the construction
and occupancy of a new regional retail center, business and office center, and hotel and residential
area, entitled the "Temecula Regional Center EIR". The EIR addressed the construction and
operation of all allowed uses and intensities of uses for the proposed regional center. These land
uses and intensities are listed in Table 1. The land use intensities adopted in the preferred
altemative are somewhat less than would be allowed by the general land use guidelines based on
the floor to area ratio given of Table 1 . Detailed Land Use Summary - of the Specific Plan.
TABLE 1
Detailed land Use Summary
Adopted Land Use Intensity
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263
Land Use Floor Area Acres in Adopted Land
Ratio Planning Use Intensity
Area (Square Feet)
Mixed Use .25-1 169.67 1,673,000
Retail, Commercial,
Core/Support Retail
Business Park/Office .40-1 5.49 810,000
Subtotal 175.26 2,483,000
Roads 26.04 . 0
Project Total . 201.30 2,483,000
Temecula Regional Center
InItial SludylOB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Cenler
INITIAL STUDY
The T emecula Regional Center currently has the following existing and approved square footage of
development (existing and approved development plans):
Table 2
Approved, Existing and Proposed Development
Specific Plan 263 . Temecula Regional Center
Existing Approved Total Existing
(Square Feet) and/or under and/or approved
construction (Square Feet)
(Square Feet)
Mixed Use
Retail, Commercial, Core/Support
Retail,
Business Park/Office 2,099,195 18,350 2,117,545
The current Development Agreement, adopted in December 1996, sets forth the obligations of the
developer and the City required to be met in order for development of the Specific Plan to be
developed consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. Under the proposed Development Agreement,
the final phase of Specific Plan implementation would occur, allowing for buildout of the Specific
Plan. The additional square footage of retail space would be developed as part of the Temecula
Regional Center, consistent with the approved Specific Plan in the same manner required by the
current Development Agreement. The proposed Development Agreement outlines the
responsibilities of the developer, T emecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., and the City to complete
the Specific Plan process.
Project location
The proposed project is located within the 179 acres (excluding roads) Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan (SP No. 263) in the City of Temecula bound by Winchester Road to the north,
Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west.
. Construction Scenario
Construction will consist of the final phase of development and parking structures that would occur
at the Temecula Regional Center within the core retail area, central mall. The exact schedule would
depend upon market conditions and availability of materials. Construction is envisioned as
occurring between early 2007 and late 2009 and is estimated to encompass approximately one year
to complete during this period.
During construction, detours and other traffic management methods would be employed as
necessary within the constraints of the surrounding site as needed. No off.site traffic would be
disturbed during construction.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study!083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Existing Surrounding Land Uses
The land uses in the vicinity of the project are high-intensity urban uses. There is a mixture of
commercial, office, and residential land uses consisting of multifamily residences, retail commercial
areas, office and industrial development. The proposed project site is within the Temecula Regional
Center, known locally as the 'Promenade Mall'. The Temecula Regional Center is completely
disturbed, graded, and/or paved;
Interstate 15, a primary north-south transportation corridor, is within one quarter mile of the site.
Utility infrastrt,lcture (electricity, water, sewer, and natural gas) exists at the project site throughout
the Specific Plan area. Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road and Overland Drive provide
general access to the project vicinity.
Other Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
The developer must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board for
a construction NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit. This permit is
granted automatically by submittal of an NOI to the State Board, but is enforced through a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies construction best management practices
for the site. The San Diego Regional Board enforces the SWPPP.
The project occurs within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area, however, it
will not be subject to review by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority as it
is would be built on a completely disturbed and paved site with no habitat value for biology
resources covered under .the MSHCP.
No other permits have been identified for the development of this site.
Procedural Considerations
As previously stated, the City of T emecula certified and adopted an Environmental Impact Report for
the T emecula Regional Center Specific Plan in 1993 which included construction and operation of a
regional retail center, business and office uses and other mixed uses including residential and hotel
development. The EIR evaluated the impact of the development of the uses listed in Table 1. The
existing and approved development associated with the Specific Plan is listed in Table 2.
The first amendment to the Development Agreement and implementation of the final phase of
development for the Temecula Regional Center may, therefore, be considered a second-tier project
being implemented under the existing certified EIR. The City must determine whether the proposed
project results in new significant impacts not evaluated in the certified EIR and must decide what the
appropriate CEQA environmental determination is to make if it chooses to approve and implement
this second-tier project.
In this case, the T emecula Regional Center EIR describes the whole project in terms of objectives
and facilities and evaluates the cumulative impact of implementing the total project over time with all
its elements. Under this, implementation of specific project components can be reviewed in the
context of the certifiedEIR findings. In this instance, the specific project being considered by the
City at this time is the extension of the approved Development Agreement for an additional three
years and construction of the final phase of the Temecula Mall as provided for in the Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
InItial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
..-.... _....... --
City of Temeoula
Temeoula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Regional Center certified EIR. Where activities or facilities being implemented for this project fall
within the scope of impacts identified in the certified EIR, the CEQA review process for this facility
can be minimized through reliance on the certified EIR to determine whether the potential impacts
from project implementation were sufficiently evaluated in the original EIR to fully address significant
impacts.
The Temecula Regional Center EIR provides a baseline and cumulative environmental evaluation
and determination for all the activities required to support the construction and full development and
occupancy of the Promenade Mall and the surrounding uses within the Specific Plan. The City can
rely upon the certified EIR and review the proposed project for consistency with the project
evaluated in the EIR, which allows 'tiering' of any future environmental review as provided in
Sections 15152 and 15385 of the State CEQA Guidelines, if subsequent environmental review is
required (Section 15162, CEQA Guidelines). Existing conditions used to make impact forecasts in
this Initial Study are not necessarily assumed to be the same as those in the EIR, as the project site
for the final phase of development is now within the existing regional center. Analysis presented in
this Initial Study will use a combination of existing conditions used in the EIR and existing today,
depending on the most appropriate baseline for a conservative analysis.
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines states: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a
negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project
unless that lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole
record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of tbe previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the
following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR or Negative Declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(e) Mitigation measures or altematives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
altematives; or
T emecula Regional Center
InltlaJStudylO83106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temeoula Regional Cenler
INITIAL STUDY
(D) Mitigation measures or altematives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or altemative.
Section 15163 requires a supplement to an EIR in the following circumstances:
(a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than
a subsequent EIR if; .
(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR, and
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
The City of Temecula was the. Lead Agency for the certified EIR. Thus, in this case the City, acting
as the CEQA Lead Agency for development of Specific Plan 263 - Temecula Regional Center, can
. rely upon the EIR certified in 1993. Determining consistency with the certified EIR encompasses
two tests. The first test entails a reevaluation of the plans for the implementation of the proposed
project, as described in detail above, with all of the environmental issues addressed in the EIR. An
analysis of each of the environmental issues is presented in this Initial Study which compares the
proposed effects from constructing and operating the proposed project with the facts and findings of
the EIR. To facilitate this process, the City hereby incorporates the certified EIR for the 'Temecula
Regional Center' as part of this Initial Study. As is permitted by Section 15150 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the EIR is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. The required summaries of
the pertinent data for all issues are provided in the Initial Study evaluation which follows. Copies of
the EIR are available at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
The second test that may be used to determine whether a second-tier project falls within the scope
of an EIR is to determine whether new circumstances or reassessment of previously identified
impacts may result in new significant impacts. As the text in Sections 15162(a) indicates "no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless that lead agency determines, on the basis
of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (Paraphrases of the
State CEQA Guidelines follow).
1. Substantial changes in the project that may cause new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously.identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken arid which may result in new significant environmental effects .or substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;. or
3. New information of substantial importance shows the project will have one or more significant
effects not previously discussed. (See specific project description).
These tests will be applied to the proposed project and a determination made regarding the
appropriate CEQA procedure to implement for the proposed project. To comply with CEOA and the.
CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study is being prepared to determine if environmental impacts of the
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1OB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
proposed project were encompassed by the impact analyses contained in the EIR prepared for the
Temecula Regional Center. Based on the evaluation provided in this Initial Study, the City will make
one of the following environmental determinations to comply with CECA for this project:
. The proposed projecfs environmental effects were encompassed by the environmental
evaluation in the EIR. No new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects beyond those evaluated and mitigated in the EIR will
result from implementing this project. No further environmental review or determination is
required.
. The project and associated impacts fall within the scope of impacts identified for the entire
Specific Plan. However, due to more detailed, project-specific information not available at
the time the EIR was prepared, impacts and mitigation not addressed in that document are
identified in the Initial Study. Adequate measures, however, are provided in the Initial Study
to mitigate potential impacts to a level of less than significant and a Negative Declaration is
the appropriate CECA determination.
. The project requires some minor changes and/or additions to clarify impacts under current
conditions but none of the current conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Under this circumstance, an Addendum to
a previously certified EIR can be prepared and adopted.
. The Initial Study identifies potential impacts that fall outside the impactforecast in the EIR and
since such impact(s) cannot be mitigated below a less than significant level, a subsequent
EIR must be prepared.
The Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form follows.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' or 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated',
as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use & Planning
Public Services
Water
Aesthetics
Utilities & Service Systems
Population & Housing
Transportation/Circulation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Biological Resources
Energy & Mineral Resources
Cultural Resources
Geophysical
Hazards
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
IV. DETERMINATION
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.
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 the mitigation
measure described on an attached sheet has been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
-L
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 all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An
Addendum will be adopted by the City as the appropriate CEQA environmental
determination for this project.
BY:
~~4t-- ~<;"~
Name
?/~y
Date:
f~ ~-O ~
"I) /,n..e. cAn
Title
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StucfyJOB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
A brief explanation is required for aI/ answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources the City cites in the parentheses fol/owing each question. A 'No
Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A 'No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well
as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
A 'No Impact' answer does not require a source listing if it is clearly apparent by a reasonable person
that the project does not affect a particular issue (e.g. the construction of infrastructure will not impact
parking capacity). The source reference in the parentheses would be 'not applicable' or (N/A).
. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
S1gnlflcant
,,,,,act
Potentially
SIgnificant
Unless Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
Irrpact I""act
Would the proposal:
Insufficient parking capacity? (N1A)
Y
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) 'Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if an effect is signnicant or potentially significant, or if the
Planning Department staff lacks information to make a finding of insignnicance. If there are one or
more 'Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is req'uired.
4) 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated' applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a 'Less than Signnicant Impacf. The Planning
Department must describe the mnigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level (mnigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analyses," may be
cross-referenced). .
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuantto the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 18 at the end of the checklist.
6) A reference list of information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances) has
been established. The source list is attached to the back of the checklist and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the impact assessment discussion. See sample question
below.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
SIgnificant
"'-'
Potentially
Significant
Unl8&9 Mitigated
Less then
SIgnificant No
'- "'-'
Would the proposal result in potential
impacts involving:
Landslides or mUdslides? (1, 7)
Temecuta Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
(Attached.source list explains that 1 is the General Plan, and 7 is a USGS tapa map. This answer would
probably not need further explanation.)
V. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST REFERENCES
KEY INFORMATION SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan Update:
a. land Use Element
b. Circulation Element
c. Housing Element
d. Open Space/Conservation Element
e. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
f. Public Safety Element
g. Air Quality Element
h. Community Design Element
i. Economic Development Element
2. T&B Planning Consultants, Specific PlanlEIR, T emecula Regional Center (Specific Plan 263),
1993/1994.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map: Murrieta, 7.5' Quadrangle'
Soil Survey - Westem Riverside Area Califomia (1971)
Congestion Management Plan (RCTC)
Growth Management Plan (WRCOG)
Other: South Coast Air Qualitv Manaaement District. ACEQA Air Qualitv Handbook@. 1993
Other: Southem California Association of Govemments 'Regional Comprehensive Plan and
Guide',1997
Other: California Energy Commission, 'Fuels', July 1999
Other: Riverside Countv Flood Control District 'SuDDlement A to the Riverside Countv
Drainaae Area Manaaement Plans. and Attachment to SUDDlement A'. 1996
11. Other: San Dieao Reaional Water Qualitv Control Board Water Qualitv Control Plan (Basin
Plan) 1997.
12. Other: California Enerav Commission 'ELECTRICITY ReDort'. November 1997
13. Other: Development Agreement By And Between The City of Temecula, Forest City
Development California, Inc., A California Corporation, And lGA-7, Inc., An Illinois
Corporation, December 1996.
14. Other: Final EIR, Temecula General Plan Update, March 2005.
15. Other: First Amendment to Development Agreement, By And Between The City of
Temecula and Temecula Towne Associates, l.P., September 2006.
16. Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, Temecula Regional Center Traffic Study Update, January
lW~ .
17. Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, Temecula Regional Center Traffic Study Update, City
Planning Questions Concerning Consistency With The Specific Plan EIR Traffic
Study Findings, May 1997.
18. Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, Costco Relocation Traffic Study, October 1999.
19. Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, Consistency letter for Planned Promenade Mall
Expansion, May 2001.
20.. Other: Resolution No. 93-57 of the City of T emecula, certifying the EIR and approval of the
mitigation monitoring plan for SP 263 by the City ofTemecula, July 1993.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
,
Temecula Regional Center
tonlal StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecule Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
VI. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST & DISCUSSION
A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Slgniflcant
'n-.aot
Potentially
Significant
. Unless Mitigated
less than
SIgnificant No
Impact IrTilact
1. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
loning? (1 a, 2,15)
y
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdictions
over the project? (1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11)
y
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations?
(la, ld, 2)
y
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (1,2,14)
y
e) Be compatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (1,2,14)
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts to land use and planning of the Temecula Regional Center, of which the proposed project
is a component, are forecast on pages V-l to V-ll and V.70 to V-76 and throughoutthe Temecula Regional
Center EIR. Land use impacts, both direct and indirect, were identified as being less than significant, with
one exception, from implementing the proposed regional center. The EIR concluded that the utililation of this
site would result in the loss of approximately 201.3 acres of pasture crops and dryland grains and lands
designated as 'Local Important farmland' and Prime Farmland. This was identified as an unavoidable,
signnicant adverse land use impact of constructing and operating the Temecula Regional Center (TRC).
1 a. ImDacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed development
agreement and implementation of the final phase of the approved specific plan for the Temecula
Regional Center would not conflict with the general plan designation or specnic plan zoning. The final
phase of development of the Temecula Regional Center is part of the implementation of the approved
specific plan for the site and General Plan designation for commercial development. The proposed
project would develop the final phase of the specific plan in accordance. with policies contained in the
specific plan and meet all other city requirements.
1 b. ImDacts Remain the Same or Less Than Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would be
required to abide with the applicable environmental plans and policies of other agencies with regulatory
authority over environmental resources. These agencies include the Air Quality Management District,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the State Water Resources Control Board. These issues
were addressed in the appropriate subchapters of the EIR. The project must also prepare and submit a
Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Temecula RegIonal Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecule Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
In general, all projects in western Riverside County are subject to the Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). However, the Temecula Regional Center site is completely disturbed,
paved, or in the process of development and contains no resources protected under the MSHCP.
The site is not within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission as it is not within the airport
influence area of any airport.
1c. ImDacts Remain the Same or Less Than Characterized in the TRC EIR. Prior to development of the
regional center, the site was used for dry-land farming and pasture and was considered prime farmland
and local important farmland. Therefore, the EIR considered development of the site potentially
. significant to agricuRural resources. The site is now completely disturbed with most of the sRe paved for
parking lots or covered with structures. As such, R is no longer considered valuable agricullural properly
or classified as important farm land by any local or state entity. Therefore, the development of the final
phase of the Temecula Regional Center would not be considered significant to agriculture.
1 d. ImDacts Remain the Same or Less Than Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is in the
west-central part of the City. Surrounding uses include varying densities of residential uses, commercial
uses, industrial and office uses, and the 1-15 freeway. The proposed project is within the approved
specific plan and would complete the implementation of the specific plan. The project would not divide
an established community. It would implement part of the General Plan land use element and provide
and opportunity for the City to collect more sales tax to support benefRs for the community at large. The
proposed project has no potential to cause a significant physical division in the existing community.
1 e. ImDacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site is within an
area developed wRh a mix of uses, including the regional shopping facilities and high densRy residential
uses and industrial uses. The development agreement and development proposed would complete the
implementation of land uses envisioned by the specific plan approved for the site. As a result, utilization
of the site would be optimized and would support the existing and proposed land uses in the project
area. Thus, it will not be incompatible wRh the existing land uses.
The final phase of development of the Temecula Regional Center would b9 completed during operation
of the remaining portions of the Regional Center and some disturbance of on-site traffic would occur.
However, no long-term land use incompatibility wRh surrounding uses would result from project
implementation. Traffic impacts on the surrounding area during construction would be reduced through
Implementation of a traffic management plan approved by the CRy.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, land use and planning issues,
related specifically to the proposed development agreement and buildout of the final phase of the Temecula
Regional Center, remain consistent with the approved specific plan and will not experience potentially
significant adverse impacts from project implementation greater than those anticipated by the TRC Final EIR.
All land use and planning issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is
approved and implemented. No land use mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent wRh
the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Temacula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
''''''''''
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mltlgat&d
.....lI1an
Signl1lcant No
IfJlI8Ct Irrpact
2. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (1, 2, 14,15)
y
b) Police protection? (1,2,14,15)
c) Schools? (1,14)
y
y
d) Parks or other recreational facilnies?
(1,2,14,15)
y
e) Maintenance of public facilnies, including
roads? (1,2,14,15)
f) Other governmental services? (1,14)
y
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to public services from development of the project as part of implementation of
the General Plan are forecast on pages V-93 through V-151 of the certified Temecula Regional Center EIR
(TRC EIR). The analysis of the regional center, including the proposed final development phase, concluded
that the project would not result in significant adverse impacts to any public services. However, the cumulative
impacts would be signnicant.
The City of Temecula provides certain public services to the City's residents that are an essential component
of the area's transnion to a modern urban/suburban communny. The services provided by or contracted by
the City include: fire protection, law enforcement services (police protection), recreation, and library services.
Other services are provided by special districts, or private service entnies. These include: schools and
medical services. Many of these services are self-supporting, i.e., users of the service pay a direct fee to a
commercial operator. Others are funded collectively by the communny residents through taxes or payment of
Development Impact Fees.
2a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site is served by the
Riverside County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry on a contract basis wnh the
City. Five fire stations serve the Temecula area and are staffed by both paid and volunteer personnel.
The closest station to respond to emergencies at the project site is the station located at 27415
Enterprise Circle West with back-up from the station at 28330 Mercedes Street. These stations are
wnhin a five minute response time of the project site.
This project site has been generally included in the cny Fire Protection Master Plan's facility
improvements and staffing increases for Temecula. It is not expected that any new physical facilities for
fire protection will be required to serve the project.
The project site is not wnhin a Wildland Fire Protection Area, i.e., an identified special hazard area that
requires additional services be available from the California Department of Forestry. Mitigation was
required to address emergency management plans for the Temecula Regional Center in the EIR.
These resulted in a Jess than signnicant impact in th!s area.
Temecuta Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
The proposed extension of time and completion of the final phase of the mall is not forecast to cause
significant adverse impacts to fire protection services and no add~ional m~igation is required beyond the
standard City code and design requirements.
2b. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would be required
to meet the City of Temecula General Plan policies and design standards that optimize safety. The
proposed project would incorporate these elements. The s~e design will be examined by the City to
ensure compliance with City circulation policies in the specific plan. Measures included to mitigate
traffic impacts in the EIR, would also improve safety and may decrease demand for police services in
response to local traffic accidents.
The City contracts w~h the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for police services. The Sheriff's
Department has a Southwest Station located at 30755-A Auld Road near the French Valley Airport. A .
store-front station is located within the Temecula Regional Center at the Promenade Mall. The project
site also has other law enforcement services available from the California Highway Patrol. The
California Highway Patrol has jurisdiction along the Interstate 15 freeway.
M~igation was identified in the EIR to reduce impacts in this area. The proposed project is not forecast
to cause signfficant adverse impacts to police services and no add~ional mitigation is required for this
project.
2c. ImDacts Remain the Same or less than Characterized in the TRC EIR. The Temecula Unified School
District provides publiC elementary, junior high and high school education for the area surrounding the
project area. The proposed project would create no demand for school capacity as the proposed
development would be retail commercial development. No housing is proposed as part of the final
phase of development. No school facilities would be displaced. No mitigation would be required and no
adverse impact to school facil~ies is forecast to result from implementing the proposed project.
2d. ImDacts Remain the Same or less than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. There are no existing parks
close to the project site. Extensive regional park and recreation facilities are located w~hin the area.
These include Lake Elsinore, Lake Perris and Lake Skinner, the latter being the closest. These facilities
offer camping, fishing, biking, picnicking, swimming and other related outdoor recreation activities.
Add~ional open space recreation activities are located on the Santa Rosa Plateau at the nature park
operated for hiking and educational. purposes.
The proposed project would not place any demand on existing local or regional park and recreation
facil~ies as no housing is proposed as part of the final phase of the specific plan implementation. It
would also not displace any existing or known proposed recreational facilities. No m~igation is required.
2e. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would result in the
buildout of an approved specffic plan. The City has funding sources in place to maintain roadways and
allocates maintenance funds on an annual basis from its general fund. The proposed project would pay
for and/or provide public road improvements and maintenance of roadways through sales taxes
generated and provisions of the development agreement. The project is forecast to place a less than
significant demand on the circulation system maintenance in the City.
2f. ImDacts Remain the Same or less than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Impacts to health services,
libraries or other public services are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of implementing
the proposed project.
No housing is proposed as part ofthe final phase of development for the specific plan. A commercial
development does not result in an increase in population or demand for health services. Therefore, no
impact on library operations has been identified such that additional mitigation is required.
Temecula RegIonal Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
No housing is proposed as part of the final phase of specific plan development. A commercial
development does not result in an increase in population or demand for library services. Therefore, no
impact on library operations has been identified such that additional mitigation is required.
No other impacts to public services are anticipated as a result of project implementation.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, public service issues related
specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially signnicant adverse impacts from project
implementation. All public service issues are forecast to experience less than signnicant impacts if the project
is approved and implemented. No additional public service mitigation is required. This finding is consistent
with the data contained in the TRC Final EIA.
Issues (and Supporting IntOlTl'lBtion Soun:es):
Potentially
Significant
,,,,,oct
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
Less "on
Significant No
~ '-
3. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (1, 2, 14, 15)
y
b) Communication systems? ((1,2,14,15)
c) . Sewer or septic tanks? ((1,2,14,15)
y
y
d) Solid waste and disposal? ((1,2,14,15)
y
e) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilRies? ((1, 2, 14, 15)
f) Storm water drainage? ((1, 2, 14, 15)
y
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to utilRies from development of the project as part of implementation of the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-93 through V-151 of the certnied TRC Final
EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the FEIR concluded that no significant adverse impacts would affect any utilities.
However, cumulative impacts would remain significant. Standard conditions and a few mitigation measures
were identnied to address project specific potential adverse impacts that were .identified in the analysis.
The proposed project may adversely impact utilities in one of two ways: first, during construction existing utility
lines may be affected by construction and the lines relocated, eRher within the existing alignment or along
another alignment; and second, over the long-term the project would utilize a particular utilRy service, such as
power consumption for street lights, or may alter an existing utilRy function, such as the drainage system. This
project will cause both of these effects and they are evaluated on a case-by-case basis below.
The City of T emecula obtains utility services from a variety of providers, ranging from public utilitieS (electricity,
natural gas and telephone) and public entities providing water and sewer service, to the CRy and County which
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
provide for flood control and solid waste disposal services. These utility services are similar to the public
service systems because they have limited capacity which must be compared to the demand proposed by a
new project. As in the case of some public services, most of the utility service systems are self-supporting,
Le., users ofthe service pay a directfee to the operator, which commonly includes a fee or a portion ofthefee
available to expand the capacity of the utility service system. Thus, for the water and wastewater system, a
connection fee provides the capital to fund future improvements and capacity expansion to meet future
forecast demand. Other than the ongoing storm water drainage management system, none of the utility
systems, including solid waste collection and disposal, is funded collectively by the community residents
through taxes or payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF).
As discussed below, any disturbance andlor relocation of utility infrastructure would be coordinated with the
appropriate utility.
38. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Southem California Edison (SCE) is the
electricity provider for the proposed project area. Some demand for electricity would be created by the
need to supply energy for the proposed buildout of commercial space in the approved specific plan.
The project and associated energy needs are part of the impacts analyzed for the buildout scenario in
the TRC EIR and General Plan EIR. The electricity demand for this final phase of the project would be
considered less than signnicant. SCE has local distribution lines on sne. Potential relocation of lines
within the specific plan area is not forecast to cause any additional adverse impacts due to the
disturbance related to the proposed project.
Southern Calnornia Gas is the natural gas provider to the project site. Demand for natural gas would
increase as a resun of developing the final phase of specific plan buildout. Any natural gas
infrastructure located within the project disturbance area would be protected andlor relocated during
project implementation.
Based on the overall energy circumstances affecting the proposed project, the energy resources are
expected to be on line to serve the energy needs of the region, as already acknowledged by the local
suppliers, SCE and The Gas Company. No significant energy impacts are forecast to result from
implementing the proposed project.
3b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Communication systems including
telephone, cable and high-speed intemet lines, are available in the vicinity of the project area and would
be used as part of project implementation. Any lines wilhin the project disturbance area would remain in
place, be removed and relocated outside the project area, or removed and placed at a depth that would
protect them within the project area. In any case, the potential relocation is not forecast to cause any
significant adverse impacts.
3c. lmoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Demand for wastewater services would
resun from the proposed project. No septic systems would be used to serve this project. Sewer
infrastructure is located wnhin the project area and wastewater would be treated at Eastem Municipal
Water District=s Temecula Valley Wastewater Reclamation Facility. Any sewer or infrastructure wilhin
the project area would be protected or relocated during project implementation. No recycled water lines
exist wnhin or near the project area. Wastewater services impacts were analyzed in the FEIR. No
significant changes to buildout wastewater demand would occur as a result of the proposed time
extension of the development agreement and construction and operation of the final phase of specnic
plan.
3d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized .in the TRC EIR. The proposed project will generate
demand for solid waste service system capacity during construction and operation. The buildout
impacts of the proposed project on solid waste services were analyzed wilhin the TRC EIR and found to
be less than significant applying standard conditions and wnh mitigation incorporated. Solid waste
Temecuta.Reglonal Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
3e.
capacity in area landfills, particularly the EI Sobrante landfill, has been expanded to provide adequate
disposal capacity for cumulative demand. EI Sobrante has more than 20 years of capacity available and
licensed at this time. Combined w~h the City=s mandatory source reduction and recycling program and
policies and programs for promoting recycling and waste reduction, the proposed project is not forecast
to cause a significant adverse impact to the waste disposal system.
ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The proposed project is located w~hin the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The proposed project would require water
during general construction activities and during operation. Commercial development would require
water for general operations, fire flows (n required), restaurant and other food service uses and
landscaping in parking lots and other outside areas.
The impacts of the Temecula Regional Center Specnic Plan on water demand were analyzed in the
EIA. Mitigation measures were recommended to reduce water impacts of the project such as
complying with any requirements to install reclaimed/recycled water infrastructure if applicable and
installing water saving fixtures and irrigation systems. With implementation of mitigation measures,
impacts to water were considered less than significant. Water lines are available at the site and any
relocation of water lines would be coordinated with RCWD.
I
Recycled water may be made available as recycled water lines are extended to new areas near the
project s~e. If available, it can be utilized w~hin the project boundaries.
3f. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. Drainage improvements connecting the
final phase of the specnic plan to the master drainage plan on-site and to the existing region-wide floo.d
controVstorm runoff drainage system would be constructed as part of the proposed project and as
analyzed in the EIA. Please refer to a detailed discussion of this issue in Section 6, Water. The
proposed project would comply w~h all Riverside County Conservation and Flood Control District
regulations including provision for no net increase in incremental discharge volumes from the site and
for water quality requirements. Note that since the project area being converted for the final phase is
already paved, no increase in storm water runoff will result from completing this phase of the project.
Onsite runoff will be detained in accordance w~h Flood Control District requirements. The project would
also have to meet the City requirements. The project will not increase the volume of flows downstream
of the project and no signnicant project specnic or cumulative signnicant adverse impact is forecast for
the storm water drainage system n the project is implemented as proposed.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above utility issues related specifically to
the proposed project and incorporation of m~igation in the EIR, there would be no potentially significant
adverse impacts from project implementation All utility issues are forecast to experience less than signnicant
impacts n the project is approved and implemented. This finding is consistent w~h the data contained in the
TRC Final EIA.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial $1ucfyl983106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecule Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and SUpporting InfonTIBtlon Souroes):
Potentially
Significant
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
4. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1,2,14)
y
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (1,2,14)
c) Displace existing housing. especially
affordable housing? (1. 2. 14)
y
y
Substantiation:
The general and indirect impacts related to population and housing is forecast on pages V-9 to V-11 and V-
152 to V-154 and throughout the certnied Temecula Regional Center EIR.
4a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is the time
extension of a development agreement and the subsequent completion of the final phase of specific
plan development and will not provide housing or lead to a signnicant increase in population or housing.
This project has no potential to cause population growth that would exceed official regional or local
population projections. The specific plan does allow for some residential uses, but these uses will not
be implemented on the project site. Implementation of the proposed action will enhance the
jobslhousing balance for the City by increasing the total square footage of development w~hin the
specnic plan area closer to the buildout square footage identified in Tables 1 and 2 in this document.
However, the proposed development only includes retail commercial uses at this time.
4b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project does not provide
housing. The s~e is within the current developed area in the City and surrounding community. It will
. complete the construction of the specnic plan previously approved and was included in the Temecula
General Plan Update and Ganeral Plan EIR in add~ion to being analyzed in the TRC EIR. As such. the
propcsed project is considered to be consistent ~ the General Plan growth projections. No significant
extension of utilities and services will be required as part of the project. Existing utilities located on site
may be relocated as part of the project to accommodate the final phase of development. The needs of
existing and projected pcpulation for retail commercial services as anticipated by the General Plan will
be partially fulfilled by completing the final phase of the Temecula Regional Center. As ~ serves existing
and planned needs, the proposed project has no pcssibility of inducing substantial growth ~in the City
or project area in general.
4c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. There are no residences w~hin the
proposed project s~e that would be demolished as part of the construction of the final phase of the
specific plan. The project site is an existing shopping center with no residential uses.
Conclusion
The propcsed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, population and housing issues
related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from
project implementation. All population and housing issues are forecast to experience less than significant
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula .
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
impacts if the development agreement time extension is approved and implemented. No population and
housing mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC
Final EIR.
Potentially Potentially Loso .,..
Significant Significant Significant No
Issues (and Supporting InfOfTT8tlon Sources): '''- Unless Mitigated ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,act
5. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Y
(1,2,14)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. Y
sharp curves or dangerous intersections),
incompatible uses (e.g. fanm equipment) or
barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(1,2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to Y
nearby uses? (2)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-s~e? y
(2)
e) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting Y
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (1,2,14)
f) Air or rail traffic impacts? (1, 2) Y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to transportation/circulation issues from development of the project as part of
implementation of the Regional Center are forecast on pages V-93 through V-117 of the certified TRC Final
EIR (FEIR). Extensive mitigation measures were identified to reduce circulation impacts. The analysis
concluded that with m~igation incorporated, no potentially significant impacts would occur to the circulation
system as a result of the specific plan Implementation. However, cumulative impacts to circulation would be
potentially significant and could not be m~igated to a less than significant level.
Traffic impacts from buildout of the General Plan, which include the anticipated buildout of the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan, are also evaluated in the recent General Plan FEIR. Several intersections and
freeway ramps are forecast to operate at less than acceptable levels of service, even with all feasible
mitigation incorporated as a result of General Plan implementation.
The proposed project being considered in this In~ial Study is a proposed Development Agreement
Amendment to extend the term of the Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an add~ional three
years to provide for the future development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of
the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
5a. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The City of Temecula has identified the
minimum level of service (LOS) as '0' for City intersections not adjacent to the interstate freeways and
LOS 'E' for intersections and ramps adjacent to freeways. As described above, the proposed project
TelTleClla Regional Center
Initial Study1OB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
will generate traffic. However, the traffic generated by the final phase of Specific Plan development was
anticipated by the TRC EIR and mitigation measures were included in the EIR to reduce traffic impacts
to less than significant levels. However, the TRC EIR also identifies potentially significanlcumulative
impacts to the city circulation system due to general growth in the area that cannot be mitigated to a
less than significant level. The General Plan EIR also identifies cumulative impacts to circulation that
cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. No new or greater impacts to circulation will result
from project implementation that were not analyzed in the TRC EIR and recently validated in the
General Plan EIR.
5b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. New road improvements were proposed
and implemented as part of the first phases of Regional Center development. Any design proposed for
road improvements or parking facilities will meet the City's design standards that are deemed to be
sufficient so as to create no traffic flow hazards. Based on the approved Specific Plan and EIR the
proposed project is not forecast to pose significant hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists, or motor vehicles.
50. Imoacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIR. During construction adequate
emergency access and control must be accomplished by implementing a traffic management plan to
ensure safe, albeit, slower traffic flow on the adjacent streets and within the Regional Center. The EIR
does not analyze this issue area. However, the City requires a traffic management plan for all
development as a standard condition. Therefore no mitigation is required to ensure this issue area
remains less than significant because it will be applied to the final phase of development as a standard
condition of approval. .
The Specific Plan and City design standards include features to ensure that hazards to safety from
design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections), incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)
or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists do not occur. Implementation of these standards is sufficient to
ensure that emergency access constraints and hazards created by construction activities are controlled
to a less than significant impact level.
5d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The existing specific plan and C~y of
Temecula zoning ordinance include requirements for adequate parking capac~. With buildout of the
Specific Plan, parking capacity would be increased if necessary using one or more parking structure(s).
Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to parking capacity as a result of this project.
5e. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The design of the proposed project would
not be in conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation. M~igation measures are included in
the EIR to encourage alternative modes of transportation, including public transportation, as they have
the potential to ease general traffic congestion in the area.
5f. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project does not affect any rail or
water circulation systems as none exists in the project area. The project is not located ~in the airport
influence area of French Valley Airport or any other airport.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and incorporation of mitigation
measures in the EIR, transportation/circulation issues are not forecast to experience significant adverse
impacts from project implementation. All traffic flow issues related to the proposed project are forecast to
experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study/083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
T emecule Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting information Sources):
Potentially
S1gnlflcant
'......
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
.....th'"
S1gnfficant No
II11)8Cl: Irrpact
6. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff? (1,2,14)
b) j:xposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding and
inundation? (1,2,14)
y
y
c) Discharge into surface waters, or in other
alteration of surface water quality, (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(1,2,14)
y
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (1,2,14)
y
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (1,2,14)
y
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, enher
through direct additions or wnhdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations? (1,2,14)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground
waters? (1,2,14)
h) Impacts to ground water quality? (1,2,14)
y
y
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to water issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the
Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-26 to V-30, V-56 to V-58, and V-118 to V-123 of the certified TRC Final
EIR (FEIR). No significant adverse impacts to the area drainage system and water quality would result from
. the proposed project implementation. However, cumulative impacts to regional flood facilnies were
considered potentially significant. Several mnigation measures were identified to address the project sne
hydrology and water quality impacts, including measures. to control future runoff and to install required
drainage system improvements for the project.
, '
6a,d
&e. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Implementation of the Specific Plan was
anticipated to result in changes to absorption rates and the amount of runoff from the project site. An
engineering report (See Volume Ii of the SPIEIR), and drainage study were used to analyze impacts of
runoff from.the implementation of the Specific Plan in the certified EIR. The project site is presently
developed with impervious surfaces, asphalt and concrete. Therefore, subsequent construction of the
final phase of Specific Plan implementation would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces. The
proposed project has been designed to accommodate the storm water flows and these flows will be
directed to on-site drainage facilities. The storm runoff will be discharged into the existing off-site
Temecua RegiOnal Center
Initial Sludy1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temeoula
Temeoula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
system of man-made channels at a comparable volume to the existing volume of runoff. The flows will
be delivered to the regional drainage system, which includes soft-bottom channels, such as Murrieta
Creek, that facilitate water recharge into the ground water basins. With implementation of mitigation
listed in the EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse changes in the local
existing drainage pattern and absorption rates within the area. No additional mitigation beyond those
measures already identified in the EIR is required.
6b. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Based on a review of pertinent FEMA and
FIRM maps for the project area, the proposed project is located partially within a 1 OO-year flood hazard
zone and partially within the inundation area for the Lake Skinner Dam. Grading and drainage facilnies
on the sne have reduced the flood plain impact to less than significant. Thus, the implementation of the
final phase of the Specnic Plan will not result in an exposure of new facilnies to signnicant flood hazards.
As described in the analysis of 6.a above, the proposed project will be required to convey storm water
flows to regional drainage systems in a manner that would ensure that no significant flood hazards will
occur downstream. Potential impacts for this issue would be less than significant based on the lack of
existing flood hazard and the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Further, the
project sne is not subject to significant flood hazards from seiche, or tsunami.
6c. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project encompasses
activnies that would typically generate some urban non-point source pollution. Paved roadways and
parking lots generally accumulate urban non-point pollutants (particles, trash, oil, etc.) This project
would discharge into the regional system that flows into Murrieta Creek and eventually the Santa
Margarna River. Varying amounts of urban pollutants such particles and petrolelim products (motor oil,
antifreeze, etc.) could be introduced into downstream waters from the proposed roadways. However,
the proposed project is not anticipated to generate discharges that would require pOllution controls
beyond those already required by the City and was forecast by the General Plan for this area
improvement.
The County and cnies have adopted stringent best management practices designed to control discharge
of pollution that could result in a signnicant adverse impact to surface water quality. The primary
document containing the guidelines for the County=s Municipal Stormwater Management Program is
titled: 'Riverside County Drainage Area Management Plan, Santa Ana and Santa Margarita Regions'
(2005). Specnic appendices define best management practices (BMPs) that when implemented, can
ensure that neither signnicant erosion and sedimentation, nor other water qualny degrading impacts will
occur as a result of developing the project. Since BMPs are mandatory for the project to comply with
established pollutant discharge requirements during both construction (Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan, SWPPP) and over the long-t!!rm (Water Quality Management Plan, WQMP), no
additional mitigation is required to ensure this Issue is appropriately addressed. Compliance will be
ensured through funilling the requirements of the SWPPP and WQMP, which can be monnored by both
the City and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Sf-h. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project is in an area where depth to
ground water has been measured from 20 to 45 feet below the surface depending on seasonal
precipitation and other factors. However, the potential to intercept ground water during grading and
construction is essentially zero. Any grading would associated with the proposed project would be less
than 20 feet below the surface. The proposed project is not subject to the requirements of Senate Bills
221 and 610 because the final phase of development improvements do not have a water demand
equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required for a 500 dwelling unn project (approximately
250 acre ft. per year).
As discussed in response 6c, surface water quality impacts would be below a level of significance with
implementation of standard conditions. Therefore, ground water qualny impacts would also be less than
significant because the proposed project will not deliver significantly contaminated water to the ground
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Centar
INITIAL STUDY
water aquifer through percolation. The impacts to rate and direction of flow of ground water would also
not experience a signnicant adverse impact because no pumping is proposed in association with the
proposed project on the project site.
No significant adverse impacts to ground water are forecast to occur as a result of implementing the
proposed project. .
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the water
mitigation measures in the EIR, water issues are not forecast to experience signnicant adverse impacts from
project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, water issues related specifically to the
proposed project will not experience potentially signnicant adverse impacts from project implementation. All
water issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and
implemented. New requirements for water quality protection have been imposed since this project was
approved, but the City mandates that best management practices be imposed to control construction and
long-term potential water quality degrading pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Because this is a
mandatory requirement, no new mitigation needs to be imposed to achieve a less than signnicant impact on
water quality issues. No new water mRigation measures are required for this roadway project. This finding is
consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Potentially Potentially Less than
Slgnlllcant Significant Significant No
Issues (and &Ipporting Infonnatlon Sources): '...... Unless Mitigated '...... '......
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or y
their habRats (including, but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
(1,2,14,15)
b) Locally designated species and/or natural y
communRies (e.g. heritage trees, oak forests,
etc.)? (1,2, 14, 15))
c) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and y
vernal pools)? (1,2.,14,15)
d) Wildlife dispersal ormigration corridors, y
(including, but not IimRed to Murrieta Creek,
Warm Springs Creek and Cole Creek)?
(1,2,14,15)
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to biological resources from development of the project as part of implementation
of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan are forecast on pagesV-n through V-83 of the certified TRC
Final EIR (FEIR). Several general mitigation measures were identified to address the project site biology
resource impacts. The EIR concluded that no significant resources were present on the site and that no
adverse impacts to the onsite biological resource issues would result from the implementation of the Specific
Temecula Regional Center
Initial S1udy/083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temeoula
Temeoula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Plan. However, the incremental loss of biotic resources (non-native grassland/open space previously used for
farming) would contribute to significant region-wide cumulative impacts to biological resources
Two studies were conducted to evaluate biological resources on the Specific Plan sRe which includes the
proposed project. The summaries of the studies and technical reports are included in the certified EIR for the
TRC and are incorporated by reference into this analysis. MRigation was included in the EIR to reduce the
impacts associated with the development of the site to a less than significant level. The EIR concluded that
with this mitigation, no significant, unavoidable impacts to biological resources would occur as a resutt of
development of the sRe. However, cumulative impacts would remain significant. The proposed project would
result in buildout of the Specific Plan as anticipated in the EIR at the same site location. No additional
biological Impacts would occur from project implementation than were analyzed in the TRC EIR. Because
they are where the final phase will be developed has already been converted to urban uses, the proposed
project does not need to incorporate the mitigation measures listed in the EIR in the biological resources
section.
7a. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The vegetation on the site was
categorized as introduced, or non-native, grassland and the sRe used as foraging habRat for raptors.
However, the site is currently completely disturbed and/or developed with a major shopping center and
other urban uses and paved for parking. No biological resources remain on-site wRh the exception of
some landscaping that has extremely limited value for use by native wildlife. The proposed project
would not disturb or destroy any biological resources.
There is no blue-line stream on site and drainage on-site has been altered through the implementation
. of earlier phases of the Specific Plan as anticipated by the TRC EIR.
7b. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The EIR found no species of concern
occurring within the proposed project or oaks or other plant species of concern within the project sRe.
The Stephens Kangaroo Rat was found nearby, but noton the project site. Raptors used the site for
foraging, but the loss of foraging haMat at this particular site alone was not considered a significant
impact. The site is now completely disturbed and/or developed with a shopping center and associated
uses. Development of the final phase of the Specific Plan will have a less than significant impact in this
area.
7c. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. No riparian habitat, vernal pools.,
wetlands, or jurisdictional waters. were found on site. The sRewas used for dryland farming and was
highly disturbed at the time of the EIR analysis. Since the sRa is fully developed with urban uses, no
potential exists to adversely impact any wetlands.
7d. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project sRe is completely disturbed
and developed for human use. It is also surrounded by other urban uses and isolated from habitat
areas making it generally unsuitable as a wildlife movement corridor. The project site is not located
within wildlife dispersal or migration/movement corridor and the lack of habRat resources indicate that
the proposed project does not serve as a movement corridor.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the biology
mRigation measures in the EIR, biology resource issues are not forecast to experience significant adverse
impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, biology issues related
specifically to the final phase of Specific Plan development will not experience potentially significant adverse
impacts from project implementation. All biology resource issues are forecast to experience less than
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudyJOB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
significant impacts though cumulative impacts from area-wide development remain significant. This finding is
consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
'-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mhigated
Less _
Significant No
ll1llact Il'l"pact
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (1, 2, 14)
y
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner? (1,2,14)
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to energy resources issues from development of the project as part of
implementation of the Temecula Regional Center are forecast on pages V-84 through V-8S and V-133 through
V-137 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). Several standard conditions were identified to address the
project site energy impacts. The analysis of the project concluded that no significant adverse impacts to .
energy resources would result from the proposed project implementation. However, cumulative impacts to
energy resources from general area-wide growth were considered potentially significant.
8a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project would not conflict with any
known energy or non-renewable resource conservation plans. The proposed project is part of the
implementation of an approved Specific Plan. Energy resources were identified in the EIR as being
adequate to meet the needs for the Specific Plan buildout. Please refer to Section 3 of this Initial Study
for a further discussion of energy suppliers in relation to the proposed project.
8b. Imoacts That Were Not Characterized in the TRC EIR.The EIR did not specifically discuss mineral
resources impacts of the Temecula Regional Center as the County had found mineral resources
impacts to be less than significant in their previous Environmental Assessment for the City. However,
the construction of the uses allowed by the Specific Plan would use energy and non-renewable
resources, such as concrete, steel and asphalt. However, .the buildout of the final phase of the Specific
Plan would have no greater impact than the buildout of the Specific Plan as a whole and would be
included as contributing part of the impact of the whole project. The use of resources to complete a
regional shopping center and provide services to the community as envisioned in the Specific Plan and
General Plan would not be considered wasteful or inefficient. Therefore, the project would have a less
than significant impact in this area.
The site is not located on any known significant mineral resource and is not known to have been mined
in the past. .
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, energy and mineral resource
issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts
from project implementation. All energy and mineral resource issues are forecast to experience less than
significant impacts if the final phase of Specific Plan construction is approved and implemented. No energy or
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study!083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
mineral resource mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent wtth the data contained in the
TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and Supporting InfOfTl'8tlon Sources):
Potentially
SIgnificant
'-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
I""act I~
9. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
(1,2,14)
y
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
(1,2,14) .
y
c) Affect historical resources? (1,2,14)
y
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (1,2,14)
y
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (1,2, 14)
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to cultural resource issues from development of the project as part of
implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-89 through V-92 of the certified TRC Final EIR
(FEIR). The analysis of the project concluded that no significant adverse impacts to cultural resources would
result from the TRC development. Several mitigation measures were identnied to address the project site
cultural resource impacts. Archa€lological and Paleontological Assessments were performed on the site as
part of the environmental analysis in the certified EIR for the TRC. These studies are provided as part of the
EIR, Volume III.
9a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The paleontological assessment
suggests that there is a probability that paleontologic resources exist on some portions of the site and
that fossil remains and fossil sites could be adversely affected by activities necessary to implement the
Specific Plan project. In order to reduce this impact to less than signnicant, mttigation measures
(including monttoring) were included in the EIR to be implemented during ground disturbance. The stte
has since been disturbed and almost completely developed. Implementation of the final phase of
construction on the site would not involve grading to a depth where paleontologic resources are likely to
occur. However, application of the existing mttigation measures would ensure the impacts to
paleontologic resources remain less than significant.
9b. . Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The archaeological assessment
concluded that no archaeological resources are likely to exist on the project site. A mitigation measure
was included which requires that should in the event that any cultural resources are encountered during.
grading or construction activities, work shall be hailed or diverted in the immediate area and a qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of resources and recommendations. It is unlikely that
any cultural resources would be encountered during the final phase of Specific Plan buildout as the site
has already been completely disturbed and graded in order to develop previous phases of the project.
However, implementation of the included mitigation measure would ensure that impacts in this area.
remain less than significant.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
9c. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. No significant historical resources were
found on sRe prior to development. The site had been used as a farm and some remnants of structures
were found on sRe but were not considered significant resources. No significant adverse historical
impacts are forecast to result from implementing the proposed project wRhin the Specific Plan site. The
re are no known historical resources on the site and the site has already been completely disturbed and
graded as part of the implementation of earlier phases of the Specific Plan.
9d. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project sRe is not known to
have any unique ethnic cultural values. No significant or unique ethnic cultural values were identified
during the paleontological or archaeological studies. Thus, no potential exists to cause adverse impacts
to unique ethnic cuttural values.
ge. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. No significant ethnic, religious, or sacred
resources are known to exist on sRe. The site is used primarily as a shopping mall wnh other accessory
retail, restaurant and office uses. No adverse impact can occur from implementing the proposed
project.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
. development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the cuttural
resource mitigation measures in the EIR, cultural resource issues are not forecast to experience significant
adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, cultural resource
issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts
from project implementation. All cuttural resource issues are forecast to experience less than significant
impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No new cultural resource mRigation measures are
required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and Supporting information Sources):
PotentisJly
81,_
'''-
Potentially
Significant
Unless MItigated
le6slhan
Significant No
Irrpact IrrpacI
10. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(1,2,14)
y
b) Affect existing recreational opportunRies?
(1,2,14) .
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to recreation from development of the project as part of implementation of the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan are forecast on pages V- 131 through V-312 of the certified TRC
Final ErR (FEIR). Please refer to the discussion regarding parks and recreation in Section 2 of this document.
The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase, concluded that no significant adverse impacts to
recreational resources would result from the proposed projeclimplementation.
10a. Impacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is a
commercial development and does not include housing. Therefore, no demand for recreation would
be generated from project implementation. The Specific Plan does allow residential uses. However,
these have not been developed within the Specific Plan area and are not being considered at this
time. Therefore, the impacts of Specific Plan buildout in this issue area are less than what was .
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
forecast at the time of Specific Plan EIR certification and approval. No demand for recreation or
parks would result from the implementation of the proposed project.
lOb. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project
would not develop or impact any areas planned for recreational uses. The proposed project site is
designated and zoned for commercial, office and related use. No adverse impact to any existing
. recreation opportunnies are forecast to occur if the proposed project is implemented.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, recreation issues related
specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project
implementation. Recreation issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is
approved and implemented. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and SUpporting Intonnation Sources):
PotentIally
Significant
'-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
Lessth..
Significant No
In-pacl: I~
11. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
(1,2,14)
y
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (1,2,14)
c) Create light or glare? (1, 2, 14)
y
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to aesthetic issues from development of the project as part of implementation of
the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-86 through V-88, V-148 through V- 149, and of the certified TRC
Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase, concluded that no significant
adverse impacts to aesthetic values would result from the proposed project implementation. Several
mitigation measures were identified to address the project site aesthetic impacts related to light and glare.
11 a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized In the TRC EIR. The proposed project is set In the west-
central area of Temecula which has been characterized by rolling hills with views of surrounding
hillsides and larger mountains in all directions. The area has become urbanized and is developed
with a mix of uses but dominated by commercial uses. The proposed project is adjacent to Highway
79, which is designated a 'Eligible County Scenic Highway'. The EIR determined that the project
would have no significant adverse aesthetic impacts on this highway.
The proposed project, would not impact undeveloped hillsides and ridgelines would still be visible in
the area after the project site is developed. The site is adjacent to 1-15, but due to the level of
development in the project area, the visual selling is not considered a significant scenic resource.
Adverse aesthetic impacts to scenic resources from development of the site would be less than
significant with implementation of existing City Design Standards and Design Guidelines in the
Specific Plan. These standards include design criteria that enhance the aesthetics of a project and
require design and site layout that are compatible with .the surrounding area. The project will be
required to meet.the City public works standards and any roadway improvements would be improved
to General Plan and Specific Plan specifications.
Temecula Regional Center
InnlaJ StuclylOB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
11 b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The proposed project would extend the
timeline of a Development Agreement to provide for the development of the final phase of a Specific
Plan. The final phase would complete the core area of an existing regional shopping mall. The
surrounding area is dominated by commercial uses with some office, industrial, and residential uses.
With implementation of General Plan and Specific Plan development standards and design criteria
the impacts of the proposed project would be consistent with the impacts analyzed in the certified EIR
for the Specific Plan. Improvements would also be required to meet the city public works standards.
Any negative effects to aesthetics would be less than significant.
11 c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The implementation of the final phase
of the Specific Plan would create limited light and glare that may adversely impact the surrounding
area as lighting would be installed to enhance safety. These impacts would be reduced with
implementation of the 'night lighting standards as established by the General Plan and Specific Plan
and that mandate that each project conform to Palomar Observatory lighting requirements as
established in Riverside County Ordinance 655. With implementation of these mandatory design
requirements for lighting and the mitigation measures included in the EIR, the proposed project will
not cause significant night lighting impacts.
,
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the, analysis presented above, and implementation of the
aesthetic mitigation measures in the EIR, aesthetic issues are not forecast to experience significant adverse
impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, aesthetic issues related
specifically to the proposed Development Agreement and final phase of Specific Plan development will not
experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. All aesthetic issues are
forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No new
aesthetic mitigation measures are required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in
the TRC Final EIA.
Temecula Regional Center
initial StudylO831 06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Cenler
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting Information SouIC8S):
Potentially
Significant
'.......
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
lrTllact 1li"paCt
12. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (1, 2, 14)
y
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? (1,
2,14)
y
c) Seismicity: special study zone? (1,2, 14)
d) Landslides or mudslides? (1, 2,14)
y
y
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
. soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill?(1,2,14)
y
f) Subsidence of the land? (1,2,14)
y
g) Expansive soils? (1, 2, 14)
h) Unique geologic or physical features? (1, 2,
14)
y
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to geology and soil issues from development of the project as part of
implementation of the Specnic Plan are forecast on pages V-12 through V-24 of the certified TRC Final EIR
(FErR). The analysis of the Specnic Plan, including the final phase of development, concluded that no
significant adverse impacts to geology or soil resources would result from the Specific Plan implementation.
Several mitigation measures were identnied to address the project site geology and soil resource impacts. A
geotechnical report of the site was prepared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EIR for the
Specific Plan. This study is provided as part of the EIR, Volume III.
The proposed project is located in a seismically active area as is all of southern Califomia. The Elsinore faull
and Murrieta Hot Springs fault are located within one mile of the project site. However, no active fault traces
or faulls have been found within the project site. It is estimated that an earthquake of magnllude 7.0 on the
Richter scale could occur on the nearby Elsinore fault segment. Signnicant earthquakes have occurred on
faults near the site. A total of 131 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater have occurred within 100 miles of
the site since 1932.
12a. Imcacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The site is not located within a State of
California Faull-Hazard Zone for active faulting and no active fault traces or faults have been found on
the project site. Ground rupture normally occurs along pre-existing faults. As there are no active
faults on the project site, the ground rupture potential is projected to be low to non-existent.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
The City requires construction to meet ns geotechnical design standards. The project structural
engineer is required to design the project based on the site-specific soil and bedrock constraints and
seismic hazards. Implementing the standards required by the cny and the published geotechnical
requirements would ensure that the potential impacts associated wnh fault rupture would be less than
significant. Further, mnigation measures included in tlie EIR ensure that the final phase of SpeCific
Plan will be constructed to meet City design standards.
12b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The sne is located in a seismically
active area typical of southern California and is likely to experience ground shaking due to
earthquakes on nearby faults. The maximum credible earthquake for the Elsinore-Temecula fault
zone is 7.0 on the Richter Scale. The City requires construction to meet cny standards and the
project structural engineer would design the project based on the Site-specific soil and bedrock
constraints identified in published geotechnical reports for the project site. Implementing the
standards required by the City and published geotechnical reports would ensure that the potential
impacts associated with ground shaking would be less than significant. See mitigation listed under
12a above.
Snes wnh loose to medium dense soils in areas where ground water is within 40 feet of the surface
are susceptible to liquefaction wnh strong ground shaking. There is potential for liquefaction in the
northern part of the site as groundwater can be only 20 feet below the surface and soils are
susceptible to liquefaction. However, the impactin this issue area would be less than significant wnh
implementation of mnigation incorporated from the EIR and would be no greater than previously
analyzed.
12c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The nearest known special study zone
and active fau~ is the Elsinore fau~ located within 0.4 mile west of the site. It Is estimated that an
earthquake of magnitude 7.0 on the Richter scale could occur on this nearby fault segment.
Significant earthquakes have occurred on fau~s near the site. However, as the sne is not within a
special study zone, Impacts to this area are considered less than significant.
12d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The landslide risk wnhln the area Is low
due to the existing topography and the general competence of the underlying geology. Additionally,
the sne Is now completely graded and developed as with parking lots. The overall slope of the
finished project would not create a significant potential for landslides or mudslides. Therefore the
potential for landsliding and/or m':ldslides is considered less than significant.
12e. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized In the TRC EIA. The issue of erosion and sedimentation
are discussed under issue 6c of this document. cny grading standards, best management practices
and the SWPPP and WQMP are required by mitigation to control the potential significant erosion
hazards. The topography has been changed to accommodate development of earlier phases of
Specific Plan implementation and has been graded to avoid erosion. Erosion of the onsite soils is a
potential impact during excavation, grading, fill and compacting operations. However, if grading does
occur as part of the project implementation, compliance with City and County standards can ensure
. that the potential for significant erosion will be controlled on the project site and be less than
significant. In addnion, because the area of Impact is greater than one acre, the final phase of the
Specific Plan must be developed meeting current water quality requirements, Including the filing of a
Notice of Intent and implementation of a Storm Water Pollu1ion Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water
Qualny Management Plan (WQMP). Since this is a mandatory requirement, no additional mitigation is
required to control potential water quality impacts to a less than significant Impact level.
12f. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The soils on the site are susceptible to
settlement from Intense ground shaking caused by seismic activity. However, implementation of
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study/083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
mitigation included in the EIR would reduce the level of significance in this issue area to less than
significant.
12g. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project has soils with.
generally low expansion potential. Therefore, impacts of expansive soils would be less than
significant. If expansive solis are found on site, the City would require soil preparation methods be
used to ensure that impacts in this area remain less than significant.
12h. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The sne has a rolling topography.
However, this type of topography is typical of the area and no geologic features would be considered
unique. Therefore, the impact to this issue area would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be, implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the
referenced seismic safety and soil erosion mnigation measures in the EIR, geology and soil issues are not
forecast to experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis
presented above, geology and soil issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience
potentially signllicant adverse impacts from project implementation. All geology and soil issues are forecast to
experience less than significant impacts If the Development Agreement time extension and final development
phase of the Specllic Plan are approved and implemented. No new geology and soil mnigation measures are
required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and supporting Information Sources):
Polenllal~
SlgnJficant
"'-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mltlgated
Less than
S1gnlflcant No
I~ I~act
13. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? (1, 2,14)
y
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?(l, 2,14)
y
c) The creation of any heanh hazard or potential
heanh hazard? (1, 2,14)
y
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (1, 2,14)
y
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (1,2,14)
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to hazard issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the
Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-59 through V- 62 and generally throughout the certified TRC Final EIR
(FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase of development, implies that no signllicant
adverse impacts to hazard issues would result from the proposed project. Several mitigation measures were
Temecula Regional Center
Initial SfudylOB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temeoula
Temeoula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
identnied to address the project site hazard impacts. A Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation of
the site was prepared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EIR for the TRC.
13a. Imoacts Are Identnied That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIR. During construction there is a
potential for accidental release of petroleum products in sufficient quantity to pose a significant hazard
to people and the environment. The City requires compliance with Best Management Practices to
manage clean-up of potential spills of hazardous materials during construction. The City also requires
all spills or leakage of petroleum and other produots during construction activities will be remediated in
compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the
contaminant released. The SWPPP would also contain sufficient measures to address accidental spills.
Though the risk of accidents would not be eliminated, it would be controlled to a less than significant
level by implementing the standard City policies. No additional mitigation is required to assure an
accidental spill will not result in signnicant water quality impacts.
13b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site would not interfere with
an emergency response or evacuation plan. The City would require a traffic management plan to be
implemented during construction that would ensure public safety and emergency access surrounding
the site. Since the project is within a five-minute response time for fire protection and emergency
response, the potential impact on emergency response and access is forecast to be less than
significant. The project will be built to conform to all City police, fire and public works standards.
13<:. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Building construction can be associated
with some hazardous materials that, if misused or spilled, may cause a health hazard to those nearby.
Hazardous materials can also be discovered during grading and/or other earthmoving activities. The
City requires Best Management Practices be employed to minimize the risks associated with these
unexpected events and the EIR also includes mitigation that would reduce the impacts of this issue to
less than significant. As a result, handling and managing hazardous substances and equipment would
result in be less than signnicant impacts from this issue.
13d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Underground utilities are present on and
near the site. However, the risk of these facilities posing a significant danger to the pUblic is no more
than occurs throughout the City or County where an extensive network of utilities serve each developed
use. The utilities present are water distribution lines, sewer lines, electrical lines, natural gas lines,
cable facilities and potentially Verizon lines. Controlling construction activities .as required in the
following mitigation measure, the potential impact to the utility lines is considered less than significant.
Also see Section 3 of this document.
The Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation found no toxic hazards on site. No other potential
hazards are known to exist onsite. Therefore, a low probability exists that the site contains any
hazardous materials. The risk of exposure of people to existing health hazards would be considered
less than signnicant with the mitigation in the EIR incorporated.
13e. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site is not located within a
Wildland Fire Protection Agreement Area, i.e., an identnied special hazard area that requires additional
services be available from the California Department of Forestry. During project construction, City
procedures will be followed so that all risks of accidental fire are reduced to less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the
referenced hazard mitigation measures in the EIR, hazard issues are not forecast to experience significant
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, hazard issues related
specnically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project
implementation. All hazard issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is
approved and implemented. No new hazard mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent
with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
'.......
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
I~ IrflI8Ct
14. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,14)
y
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(1,2,14)
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to noise issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the
Specnic Plan are forecast on pages V-31 through V- 46 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of
the Specnic Plan, including the final phase, concluded that significant adverse impacts to noise issues would
result from the proposed Specific Plan implementation due to cumulative noise impacts resulting primarily
from increases in traffic in the area over time. Mnigation measures were identified to address long-term
project noise impacts and standard conditions for controlling construction noise. A Noise Assessment was
prepared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EIR for the TRC. This study is provided as part
of the EIR, Volume III.
14a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Construction of the proposed project
would increase noise levels in the area and is considered a short-term impact to ambient noise levels.
Noise generated by equipment can reach high episodic levels, but these episodes are of relatively
short duration and typically restricted to day light hours.
In order to control construction noise levels to a level consistent with the City Noise Element, the City
would require noise reduction measures as conditions of approval for grading and building permits.
Some standard policies include limning the hours of construction actiWy, and requiring a construction-
related noise mitigation plan for projects adjacent to sensitive receptors. The EIR also .identifies a
mnigation measure to address construction noise and several to address construction techniques to
reduce interior and exterior noise impacts. Given the location of the final phase wnhin the Mall, the
potential for significant noise impacts on sensitive receptors is considered very low. .
As construction noise impacts are of relatively short and temporary duration, incorporation of these
mnigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant.
The EIR concluded that cumulative noise levels in the area of the project are considered significant
and adverse and cannot be mnigated to a level of less than significant. The Specnic Plan would
contribute no significant stationary noise effects to off-sne due to project implementation, but the
noise levels in the surrounding area will continue to increase due to traffic. The noise increases are
due to regional growth and location next to a majot north-south transportation corridor. The Specific
Plan nself will contribute little and insignificantly to ultimate noise levels.
No changes in conditions or the results of the analysis would occur as a result of developing the final
phase of the Specnic Plan analyzed in the TRC EIR.
Temeoola RegIonal Center
Initial StudylO831 06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
14b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. None of the activities associated with
the proposed project, either during construction or during operation of the completed Specific Plan is
forecast to generate severe noise levels. However, in order to ensure that exposure of people to
severe noise levels is reduced to a less than significant level, implementation of the construction
noise mitigation measure and standard city procedures is recommended. No routine aircraft
overflights or airport operations occur within the project area. With implementation of the mitigation
measures listed in the EIR and compliance with the City of Temecula Municipal Code and policies,
potential severe noise impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The propost'ld project Is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the
referenced noise standard conditions and mnigation measures in the EIR, noise issues are not forecast to
experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. There will be a $ignificant and adverse
cumulative noise impact due to regional growth. However the contribution of the Specific Plan, including its
final phase of development is not considered significant or potentially significant. Based on the analysis
presented above, noise issues related specifically to the implementation of the final phase of development of
the TRC Specific Plan will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation.
Apart from area-wide cumulative impacts, all noise issues are forecast to experience less than significant
impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No new noise mnigation is required for this project. This
finding is consistent wnh the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Slgnlllcant
.",...
Potentially
SignifIcant
Unless Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
.",... ''''''''
15. AIR QUALITY. Woul(i the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(1,2,14)
y
b) Expose sensnive receptors to pollutants?
(1,2,14)
y
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate?
(1,2,14)
y
d) Create objectionable odors?
(1,2,14)
y
Substantiation:
I.
I
The general impacts related to air quality issues from development of the project as part of implementation of
the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-47 through V-55 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis
of the Specific Plan, including the final phase of development for the Specific Plan, concluded that Air Quality
impacts were potentially significant and would not be reduced to less than significant even with mitigation.
Mitigation measures were identified to address short-term project construction air quality impacts, but impacts
were still considered significant. '
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO831 06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temeoula
Temeoula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
15a
&b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is the time
extension of the existing Development Agreement in order to construct the final phase of an approved
Specific Plan. The EIR analysis concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan, including the final
phase would resu~ in localized and basin-wide cumulative exceedances of air quality standards. All
emissions were determined to be at or above thresholds during construction and operation even with
mitigation. The proposed project impacts are relatively the same as those evaluated in the EIR. Note
that regional air quality is improving slowly as vehicle emissions are reduced with new vehicles replacing
older vehicles. This change does not a~er the fact that emissions from the Specffic Plan are considered
significant because they exceed thresholds, but the fulfillment of the Specific Plan, from a jobslhousing
standpoint and due to reduced vehicle miles traveled for local residents seeking Mall retail facilities, are
consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan presently in place.
15.c Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project does not include
uses or encompass a large enough project to cause significant changes in area climate. No impact was
identified and no mitigation was required.
15.d Imoacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIR The EIR did not evaluate the potential
for significant odor generation or exposure. During construction, the proposed project includes
operations that will have diesel odors associated with equipment and materials. None of these odors
are permanent, nor are they normally considered so offensive as to cause sensitive receptors to
complain. Diesel fuel odors from construction equipment and new aspha~ paving fall into this category.
Both based on the short-term of the emissions and the characteristics of these emissions, no
significant odor impacts are forecast to resu~ from implementing the proposed project.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the
. . referenced air quality standard conditions and mitigation measures in the EIR, air quality issues are forecast to
experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above,
air quality issues related specifically to the proposed project, a time extension of a Development Agreement
and construction of the final phase of a Specific Plan will contribute to the potentially significant adverse
impacts from project implementation. All air quality issues are forecast to experience signfficant impacts ff the
project is approved and implemented. The impacts will remain relatively the same as were analyzed in the
EIR. No new mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the
TRC Final EIR. .
TelTl9Clila Regional Center
Initial StudylO831 06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and SUpporting Informstion Sources):
Potentially
Significant
1mp8ct
Potentially
Significant
Unless MItigated
Less than
SIgnificant No
Irrpact lfl1)act
16.. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of 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 or
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 the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
y
y
c) Does the project have impacts which 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.)
y
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, e~her directly or indirectly?
y
Substantiation:
The proposed project consists of a proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the
Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an add~ional three years to provide for the future
development of the remaining square footage allOWed under the final phase of the approved Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan. The project is part of the City of Temecula Specific Plan No. 263. The
construction and operation of this proposed project has been evaluated as having no potentially signilicant
effects that are significantly greater than those analyzed in the EIR and that would not be reduced to less than
significant level with m~igation incorporated from the Specilic Plan EIA. In add~ion, changes in circumstances
for issues such as biological resources (MSHCP), water quality (SWPPP and WQMP)and air quality (better
regional air quality) do not result in additional significant adverse impact that requires new mitigation
measures. The following text summarizes potential impacts and recommendations.
16a. Potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project have been identilied
in the areas of biological and cultural resources for the Specific Plan in the Specific Plan EIA. However,
based on technical studies for these issues, all but cumulative impacts to Wildlife and Vegetation were
reduced to a less than significant impact level by implementing the m~igation measures identified in
Sections 7 and 9 of this Initial Study. With mitigation, all biological and cultural resources impacts were
reduced to a less than significant level, except for cumulative impacts. No further analysis of these two
Temecula RegIonal Center
InItial Study1083105
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
issue areas is reqiJired and the findings of this Initial Study are consistent with the findings in the
certified TRC EIR for these two issues. The proposed project is being constructed on an already
urbanized sne and biology mnigation measures have been fuKilled and are no longer applicable.
Generally, the potential effects on cuttural resources have also already occurred and mitigation
implemented. However, some impacts may occur and mitigation for cultural resources in the TRC EIR
will be implemented to ensure that they remain the same as those evaluated in the Specific Plan EIA.
l6b
&c. Potentially significant long-term and cumulative impacts of the proposed project as part of the Specific
Plan were analyzed in the EIR and were associated with the following areas: transportation/circulation,
air quality, seismic safety, agricultural lands, noise, circulation, wildlife/Vegetation, flood/drainage, public
facilities, and utilnies. The adverse long-term and cumulative impacts in these areas would not be
reduced to less than significant with mitigation. No further analysis of these issues is required. All other
issues with a potential for cumulative impact or short-term impacts to the detriment of the long-term
environment were determined to be less than significant, or in some cases less than significant with
implementation of mitigation. No further analysis of these cumulative issue areas is required and the
findings of this Initial Study are consistent with the findings in the certified TRC EIR for these issues.
The proposed project would have impacts that remain relatively the same as those evaluated in the
Specific Plan EIA.
l6d. The project complies wnh existing land use designations and zoning and with mitigation (or mandatory
design requirements) for aesthetic issues, hazards, and noise impacts. Even with mitigation, potential
air quality, circulation, seismic safety, flood/drainage, public facilities, utilities and noise impacts
associated with the Specific Plan, and this the final phase of development, would result in exposure of
humans to substantial adverse impacts due to the cumulative impacts of general growth in the area that
cannot be mitigated to a level of non-signnicance. No further analysis of these human impact issue
areas is required and the findings of this Innial Study are consistent wtth the findings in the certified TRC
EIR for these issues. The proposed project would have impacts that remain relatively the same as
those evaluated in the Specnic Plan EIA.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. The project analyzed in this document is essentially the same as the project
analyzed in the Temecula Regional Center EIA. Thus, this Initial Study was prepared to determine what the.
impacts of the revised project, which consists of a time extension of a Development Agreement in order to
develop the final phase of a Specific Plan, would be equivalent to that analyzed in the EIA. This finding is
based on implementation of mitigation measures identified in the original EIR and City imposition of and
enforcement of mandatory or standard conditions of approval when the final phase of the Specific Plan is
implemented. The analysis indicates that no new signnicant effects will be caused by including this
modification to the overall project analyzed in the EIA. The impacts will remain relatively the same as
analyzed in the EIA.
Because no new mitigation measures have been identnied and required for the proposed project to ensure no
significant impacts will result from its implementation, the City can issue an Addendum to the certnied TRC
EIR as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination. Neither a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR nor a
Negative Declaration is required to comply wnh CEQA for this project. The City will adopt an Addendum to the
EIR for the proposed project. The City Council will consider adoption of an Addendum to the certified
Temecula Regional Center EIR to consider in conjunction with a decision on whether to proceed with the
Development Agreement amendment and final phase of the Specnic Plan as described in this document.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylOB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecule Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Yes
No
17. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE
MINIMIS" IMPACT FINDINGS.
a) Does the project have the potential to cause
any adverse effect. either individually or
cumulatively, on fish and wildlife? Wildlife is
defined as "all wild animals. birds. plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological
communities, including the habitat upon which
the wildlife depends on for n's continued
viabilny" (Section 711.2. Fish and Game
Code).
y
The proposed project is the time extension of a Development Agreement for the purpose of completing the
final phase of a Specific Plan wnhin a completely disturbed site. The sne is a developed shopping center and
the project would be developed within an area that is completely paved.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES.
A previous CECA analysis of the site for the proposed projeCt includes the EIR for the Temecula Regional
Center (Specffic Plan 263) which was certified in July 1993. The recently adopted City General Plan EIR,
2005, also provided substantiating data utilized in the Initial Study. The proposed project is consistent wnh the
Specffic Plan analyzed in the TRC EIR.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
FIGURES
INITIAL STUDY
Ternecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Data use subject to license.
tm2004 DeLorme.XMapt!)4.5.
WNW.delorme.com
1
MN(12.7'E)
~ml
o 2 4 6 B 10
Data Zoom 9-0
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Data use subject to "cense.
ml2004 Delorme. XMapt!)4.5.
WWN.delorm~.com
1
~ft
o 9lJ 1600 2m' 3200 <<m
Data Zoom 13-0
MN (12.7" E)
Temecula Regional Center
Inltlal Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENT NO.6
EIR ADDENDUM
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q197 Mall Da AmendmentlPlanningIPC SlaffReportdoc
8
ADDENDUM TO THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This document is an Addendum to the Temecula Regional Center Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR"). Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines
section 15164(a) (14 CaI. Code of Regs. ~ 15000 et. ~.), the City of Temecula has prepared this
Addendum to make a minor change to a previously certified EIR. Additionally, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15164(e), the Addendum must include a brief explanation of the.
City's decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
Project Description and Background
The City of Temecula proposes to extend a Development Agreement (due to expire in
January 2007) for a period of three years to expire in January 2010, for subsequent construction
of the final phase of retail commercial space and parking facilities within the Temecula Regional
Center core commercial area in an area. The proposed project would be developed within
Planning Area 2 of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 263) and would be located
primarily between the current Macy's department store and Edwards Cinema and also on the
north side of the Edwards Cinema within the current core shopping area. The existing Regional
Center currently has 2,117,545 square feet of existing and approved development. The approved
Specific Plan for the Temecula Regional Center allows up to 2,483,000 square feet of
development. The extension of the Development Agreement would continue the agreement with
the City under which the development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final
phase of the Specific Plan would be implemented.
In 1993 the City of Temecula certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
construction arid occupancy of a new regional retail center, business and office center, and hotel
and residential area, entitled the "Temecula Regional Center EIR". The EIR addressed the
construction and operation of all allowed uses and intensities of uses for the proposed regional
center.
The current Development Agreement, adopted in December 1996, sets forth the
obligations of the developer and the City in order for development to be consistent with the
adopted Specific Plan. Under the proposed Development Agreement, the final phase of Specific
Plan implementation would occur, allowing for buildout of the Specific Plan. The additional
square footage of retail space would be developed as part of the Temecula Regional Center
consistent with the approved Specific Plan in the same manner required by the current
Development Agreement. The proposed Development Agreement outlines the responsibilities of
the developer, Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., and the City to complete the Specific
Plan process.
Legal Standard
As noted above, an addendum should include a brief explanation of the lead agency's
decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR. A lead agency may only require the preparation of a
915441.1 August 3D, 2006
1
subsequent or supplemental EIR under very narrow circumstances. Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines states:
"a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless that lead agency determines, on the basis
of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted,
shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be infeasible
would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project. proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives; or
(0) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative."
Further, Section 15163 allows for the preparation of a supplement to an EIR in the following
circumstances:
"(a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather
than a subsequent EIR if;
915441.1 August 3D, 2006
2
(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of
a subsequent EIR, and
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation."
CEQA Findings
, i
I
, '
The City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the extension of the
Development Agreement or construction of the final Phase of the Specific Plan triggered any of
the conditions (described above) which require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental
EIR. The City hereby incorporates the Initial Study as part of this Addendum. The Initial Study
evaluated the impacts of the proposed extension of the Development Agreement on Land Use
and Planning, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Population and Housing,
Transportation/Circulation, Water, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources,
Cultural Resources, Recreation, Aesthetics, GeophysiCal, Hazards, Noise, Air Quality and
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
The Initial Study compared the environmental impacts of the proposed extension of the
Development Agreement with the identified environmental impacts of the approved
Development Agreement evaluated in the previously certified Temecula Regional Center EIR.
The analysis in the Initial Study indicates that no new significant effects will be caused by
proposed extension to the Development Agreement and subsequent construction of the final
phase of the Specific Plan. Nor will the proposed extension to the Development Agreement
increase the severity of any previously identified significant impact. The impacts will remain the
same as analyzed in the Temecula Regional Center EIR.
The Initial Study also analyzed whether new circumstances would result in new
significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Initial Study
found that no new circumstances exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
Further, the Initial Study analyzed whether new information exists that indicates that the
project would introducenew significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified
significant effects, or whether any new information suggests new mitigation measures or shows
that the mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible are in fact feasible. The Initial
Study found no new information that suggested new significant effect or increased the severity of
previously identified effects. Nor did any new information suggest new mitigation measures or
suggest that mitigation meaSures previously identified as infeasible were in fact feasible.
Because the Initial Study finds no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of
previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change in the mitigation
measures previously discussed, the City finds that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be
prepared, and that the City may rely on this Addendum to approve the proposed extension to the
Development Agreement.
91544U August 30,2006
3