HomeMy WebLinkAbout022107 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
February 21,2007 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution No. 07-10
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
RollCall:
Commissioner Guerriero
Carey, Chiniaeff, GuerrierO, Harter, and Telesio
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minu1es is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited 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 Drior 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.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2007\02-21-o7.doc
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
I
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 filed within 15 calendar days
after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning
Department appllcl:!.tion and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
1 Plannino Apolication No PA06-0293. a Develooment Plan and Conditional Use Permit.
submitted bv Forest City Commercial Develooment. to exoand the Promenade Mall bv
125.950 souare feet with .an outdoor life-sMe main street shol!qino c~ntAr t:lnd construct two
parkinG structures. located between Edwards Cinema and Macv's. Chervl Kitzerow/Matt
Peters. Associate Planners.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Wednesday, March 7, 2007, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2007\02-21'{)7.doc
2
i
ITEM #1
-... ~ ..." ~-- ......,.. -..,," ....,........ -,.
r
DATE OF MEETING:
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
RECOMMENDATION:
CEOA:
~..,".-~~,-~.'., -, ~ ~._- -
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 21. 2007
Matt Peters
Cheryl Kitzerow
TITLE:
Associate Planriers
Planning Application No. PA06-0293, a Development Plan to
expand the Promenade Mall by 125,950 square feet with an
outdoor life-style main street shopping center consistent with
square footage allowed in the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit is
requested to construct two parking structures. The project
site Is located at the Promenade Mall, between Macy's and
Edwards Cinema, addressed as 40820 Winchester Road.
Building It - Retail, 22,966 SF
Building B - Retail, 19,535 SF
Building C - Retail, 29,506 SF
Building D - Retail, 21,155 SF
Building E - Restaurant, 6,300 SF
Building F - Restaurant, 8,551 SF
Building G - Retail, 950 SF
Building 1- Restaurant, 16,500 SF
West Parking Structure - 2 levels, 90,800 SF, 241 spaces
East Parking Structure - 4 levels, 332,500 SF, 934 spaces
IZI Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
o Recommend Denial
o Categorically Exempt
(Section)
(Class)
IZI Notice of Determination
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
(Section) 15162
DEIR
G:\Plannlng\2006\PAOfl.{)293 Prom_de Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlahninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: Kenneth Lee. Forest City Commercial DeveloDment
Date of Completion: October 3. 2006
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: February 21. 2007 '
General Plan Designation: Community Commercial
Zoning Designation: Specific'Plan #7, Temecula Regional Center
Retail Commercial Core CPA 2)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Existino Promenade Mall - Darkinplot
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existino Commercial Uses
Existino Commercial and Office Uses
Existino Commercial and Residential Uses
Existino Commercial Uses
Lot Area:
Parcels within Mall LOOD Road -78.06 acres.
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
Existing - .36
. Proposed - .40
Permitted - .25 - 1.0
Lot Coverage:
Buildings Only: Existing - 20%
Proposed - 23%
MaximUlT1Permitted - 32%
Buildings + Structures: Existing - 20%
Proposed -.27%
Maximum Permitted - 50%
Landscape Area/Coverage:
Existing -18% (3% hardscape/15% softscape)
Proposed - 20% (5% hardscape/15% softscape)
Minimum Reauired - 15%
Parking Required/Provided (for
entire Mall project bound by Loop
Road):
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
Existing - 5,432 spaces
Proposed - 5,445 spaces
Reauired - 5.292 SDaces
On October 11,1994 the City Council approved the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
(SP No. 263) and Environmental Impact Report No. 340 with associated Mitigation Measures.
On December 17, 1996, the City Council approved the Temecula Regional Center
Development Agreement. On September 26, 2006, the City Council approved a Development
Agreement Amendment and Environmental Impact Report Addendum to extend the term of the
Development Agreement an additional three years, to expire in January, 2010, for subsequent
G:\Plannlng\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlannlngIPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
2
construction of the final phase of retail commercial space and parking facilities within the
Temecula Regional Center core commercial area. As part of the approval of the First
Amendment, the City Council found 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.
On October 3, 2006, Forest City Development submitted Planning Application No. PA06-0293.
Staff met with the applicant on October 16, 2006, October 30,2006 and on November 7,2006
to discuss design issues with the Development Review Committee. A Planning Commission
subcommittee (Commissioners Chiniaeff and Guerriero) also met with the applicant on
October 30, 2006. On January 9. 2007, staff and the project applicant met with the owners of
Bel Villaggio, Power Center 1 ("Temecula Commons") and Power Center 2 to discuss the
project. Several meetings with the owners of the adjacent Bel Villaggio development and the
project applicant were held between January and February to discuss concerns over site
design and impacts to Bel Villaggio. In addition, City Council and Planning Commission
members toured the recently opened Otay Ranch Town Center with the project applicant to
visit a similarly designed facility. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all
concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions
of Approval.
ANALYSIS
DeveloDment Plan
The proposed project would be developed within Planning Area 2 of the Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan (SP 263) 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 Temecula Regional Center SpeCific Plan allows for the construction
of 2,483,000 square feet of retaiVcommercial space, with 1,375,000 square feet to be within
the retail core ("Mall"). To date. 2,117,545 square feet have been approved and constructed
within the Specific Plan and 1,248,604 square feet within the retail core ("Mall"), leaving a
remainder of 126,396 square feet to be constructed within the retail C()re. Consistent with the
approved Specific Plan, the proposed project includes the development of 125,950 square feet
of retail space and 2 parking structures to support the additional square footage.
Site Desion
The proposed expansion is designed as an outdoor life-style main street shopping center to
accommodate both pedestrians and vehicles. The existing parking lot between Macy's and the
EdWards Cinema, and the existing outdoor plaza at the Edwards Cinema, would be
reconfigured to accommodate the proposed expansion. The project is designed with two
parking structures at the west and east boundaries of the expansion area, new retail buildings
flanking the Main Street (which will wrap in front of the Edwards Cinema), and a new retail
building to the east of the existing cinema. The new retail buildings would be constructed to
create a pedestrian and vehicular "main street." Several new plazas, paseos and courtyards
would be created within the project. A new ou1door plaza would be created between Buildings
A and B where a new mall entrance will be created. In addition, a new entrance to the Macy's
building would be provided from the proposed plaza between Buildings A and C. The existing
plaza at the EdWards Cinema will be reconfigured to provide for a 'park-like' setting. Paseos
will be provided to connect the parking structures with the retail component of the project.
G:\Plannlng\2006\PA0fl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
3
The main street design concept achieves the goal of the Specific Plan by encouraging "public
gathering places, plazas, sitting areas, public art and water features." Pedestrian connectivity
to the adjacent Bel Villaggio site will be provided via enhanced pavers at the "main streef'
entrance and the entrance to Bel Villaggio across the Loop Road. The project conforms to the
development regulations of the T emecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP-7) zoning
ordinance. The building setbacks, separations, and heights meet the minimum requirements
of the Specific Plan. The Floor Area Ratio is below the target ratio for the zoning district and
the proposed lot coverage is below the maximum permitted lot coverage.
Circulation and Parkinq
The Department of Public Works has analyzed the traffic impacts of the proposed 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 (as updated) and Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan EIR. The Fire Department has also reviewed the plan and
determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the
site.
Primary access to the proposed expansion would be from Camino Campos Verdes LanelLoop
Road. Vehicular access would traverse the 'main street' of the proposed life-style shopping
center, providing a connection through the site from Camino Campos Verdes back to the Mall
Loop Road (to the secondary access drive at the Loop Road, across from Bel Villaggio). An
internal street will also provide additional access around the rear of the Cinemas. The east
and west parking structures would not provide direct access to the Mall Loop Road. Instead,
vehicles would enter the structures from the internal parking lot drive aisles. The west
structure provides one access point along the east side of the Macy's store. The east structure
will provide two access points, one along the eastern-most elevation of the structure and the
other along the east elevation closest to the Cinemas. Loading/service areas are proposed
behind Buildings A, B, C, and D. Staff has conditioned that these areas be adequately
screened from public view and adequate signage be provided to prohibit public access to
these areas. The proposed site plan provides adequate circulation for vehicles and
pedestrians, and the Fire Department has reviewed the plan and determined that there is
proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site.
The proposed expansion would result in the temporary loss of surface parking spaces.
,However, these spaces would be regained through the construction of the two proposed
parking structures. As a result of the expansion, an excess of 153 parking spaces will be
provided on-site. The proposed expansion will also provide motorcycle and bicycle parking
dispersed throughout the project site, per the requirements of the Development Code.
Architecture
The proposed architecture includes conceptual elevations and architectural details for the
ou1door spaces. The conceptual architecture is consistent with the Specific Plan requirements
for earth tone colors and materials such as timbers, stone and stucco finish. The design of the
buildings incorporate varied roof heights and elements (towers), trellises, varied stucco
finishes, varied building materials (tile; brick, stone, siding), window awnings, and varied roof
materials (substantial cornices and seam metal). As proposed, each tenant space will have a
defined (yet integrated) faQ8de. The parking structures, as desigped, will incorporate colored
concrete columns, and stucco pop-out enhancements with architectural detailing to break up
the mass of the structures. The applicant has not provided elevations for all four sides of the
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
4
retail buildings or parking structures. Therefore, the project has been conditioned that the final
architectural plans for each building, including the parking structures, shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission.
Landscaoino
The landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Specific Plan and City-
wide Design Guidelines. Tree and shrub placement will serye to define plaza and entry areas,
effectively screen onsite parking areas and soften building elevations. The project proposes to
landscape 181,086 square feet or 20 percent of the site. The project will include a variety of
trees, including Lemon scented gum, Washington Palm, Pepper Trees, and Crepe Myrtles. In
addition, decorative paving, lighting, water features, fireplaces, and outdoor seating areas with
shade structures are proposed to enhance the commercial center.
The Specific Plan calls for 50% shading of the parking areas by trees. The intent of the
shading requirement is to reduce the heat gain present with a large expanse of hard-scape
paving. Providing an adequate amount of shading will reduce the heat gain, however the
current plan does not provide this level of shading. The tree proposed for the parking areas is
predominantly Eucalyptus citriodora. The citriodora species is tall and graceful and will be an
asset to placing the 45-foot high movie complex in scale. However, the Eucalyptus citriodora
provides little shade, and is used uniformly throughou1 the parking area. To address this
concern, staff recommends conditioning the project to provide additional lower growing trees to
provide more shade closer to the ground. A Condition of Approval has been included that
requires the construction landscape plans to include additional trees that complement the
Eucalyptus citriodora, such as Ulmus parvifolia 'Drake' or Platanus acerifolia, both of which are
on the approved plant list in the Specific Plan.
With the above changes incorporated, the project is consistent with and meets the intent of the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan landscape standarqs.
Conditional Use Permit - ParkinG Structures
The Specific Plan requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for parking structures.
The proposed project includes two parking structures (west structure with 2 levels, 90,800
square feet, and 241 spaces and the east structure with 4 levels, 332,500 square feet, and 934
spaces). Staff has determined that the parking structures are an integral component of the
proposed expansion and that the findings for approval can be made. The proposed parking
structures are consistent with the surrounding uses and will not adversely impact 'the existing
buildings or uses. .
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The application for the proposed Development Plan and Conditional Use p.ermit has been
reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's
local CEQA Guidelines. This review included the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR")
for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263, approved by the City Council as EIR
No. 340 on October 11, 1994, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein,
the City Council's approval of the Addendum to the FEIR on September 26, 2006, and the
subsequent environmental reviews of development plans for the Mall following approval of the
Development Agreement. Based on that review" staff recommends that the Planning
G:\Planhlng\2006\PA0fl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanningIPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
5 -
Commission find that the .proposed Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit 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 CEOA Guidelines (14
Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist.
The proposed Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit do not involve significant new
effects, do not change the baseline environmental conditions, and do not represent new
information of substantial importance which shows that the Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FEIR and
Addendum. The Development Agreement provides that the Developer has vested rights to
proceed with the proposed expansion of the Mall and the parking structures. All potential
environmental impacts associated with the proposed Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, and the Addendum approved as part of
the extension of the Developrrient Agreement. Any impacts concerning aesthetics, agricultural
resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water. quality, land use and planning, mineral resources,
noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities and
service systems, were all studied as part of the FEIR and Addendum. The prior approvals of
the Development Agreement and the extension of the term of the Development Agreement by
the First Amendment to the Development Agreement establish that the mitigation measures
contained in the FEIR and the terms of the Development Agreement will reduce those impacts
to a level that is less than significant. The Application for PA 06-293 is,the vehicle by which
the City confirms that the standards and requirements established in the Development
Agreement for the Developer's vested right to construct the expansion of the Mall and the
parking structures have been properly implemented and does not provide for any new
structures or uses not fully contemplated and addressed in the Development Agreement.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination pursuant to Section15162 of the CEOA Guidelines (14
Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is the appropriate type of CEOA documentation for the Development
Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and no additional environmental documentation "is required.'
Although not required as part of the CEOA review, the Staff reviewed a Supplemental Traffic
Analysis for the Promenade Mall Expansion, prepared by RBF Consulting which determined
"that cumulative trip generation estimated for the approved Promenade Mall/Power Center I
and II, Costco, Bel VillaggiolOverland Corporate Center, and proposed Promenade Mall
Expansion pr.oject falls within the Specific Plan total included in the original EIR Traffic Study
previously approved by the City." The analysis concluded that "the Promenade Mall Expansion
project, as currently proposed, is consistent with the original Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan EIR Traffic Study." In additio,n to the mitigation measures incorporated into the
project by the FEIR, the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan, the City entered into a
Settlement Agreement with the County of Riverside, dated as of May 2005, in which the
CountY. has agreed to require development in the 1-215 Area to become part of a fully and
funded Community Facilities District for the construction of various roadways designed to
reduce. the traffic on Winchester Road.
CONCLUSIONIRECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan and conforms to the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, the Development Agreement, and the applicable
provisions of the Development Code. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit subject to the attached conditions of approval.
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
6
FINDINGS
Develooment Plan oar Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula MuniciDal Code
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula, Specific Plan
No. 263, the Development Agreement, and with all applicable requirements of state law
and other ordinances of the City.
As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for
Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of TemeculaGeneral Plan and
the Retail Core designation in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The
General Plan has listed the proposed uses, including retail, professional office, and
service-oriented businesses, as typical uses in the Community Commercial
designation. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and Design Guidelines of the
Specific Plan require that proposed buildings be compatible with existing buildings.
The profJO$ed commercial uses are compatible with the surrounding commercial
buildings currently located adjacent to the proposed site. Additionally, the Development
Agreement establishes that the Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed
additional structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development
Agreement.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
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. Additionally, the Development Agreement
establishes that the Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed additional
structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development Agreement.
Conditional Use Permit oer Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municioal Code
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan No.
263, the Development Agreement, and the applicable provisions of the Development
Code.
The site is properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the
proposed parking structures. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additionally, the Development Agreement
establishes that the Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed additional
structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development Agreement.
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; .
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlannlng\PC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
7
L
- -.~-
The proposed project 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 because the project has
been designed to integrate with the adjac;ent architecture and provides landscape
screening in a manner consistent with the Development Code. The building is also
compatible in scale with the surrounding uses and will blend in appropriately.
3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and sh&pe 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 neighborhoqd;
The site for the proposed parking structures is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the required development features. The site for the proposed buildings
and parking structures is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the required
development features. The Development Agreement establishes that the Developer
has a vested right to construct the proposed additional structures in accordance with
the requirements ofthe Development Agreement.
4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community;
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community because the project will provide required parking to serve the
commercia/development and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply
with all UBC (Uniform Building Code) and UFC (Uniform Fire Code) standards.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 9
2. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 10
3. PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 11
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
4. Initial Study for Temecula Regional Center First DA Amendment, dated August 2006-
Blue Page 12
5. EIR Addendum forTemecula Regional Center First DA Amendment, dated August 2006
. - Blue Page 13
6. Conformed Copy of Notice of Determination for ErR Addendum - Blue Page 14
7. Letter from Alhadeff & Solar representing Bel Villaggio - Blue Page 15
. 8. Letter from resident Dorothy Hyman - Blue Page 16
G:\Plannlng\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
8
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G:\Plannlng\2OO6\P_93 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
9
/
\:
,...<---. ._'"~
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PLAN REDUCTIONS
G:\Planning\2006\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
10
. ' i _ .!!l
e 0" ~ I. oS " Ii 11,' i
e It... t;! ~ .<1 2J is .. is
I i-~"" ~I' ~ I~ -I U" I ;. - I ~I.- 'i i~i
WJJ Im:h d.m !!dmll!di h21!! 11M! hio~~~
~ II. rn
... l
.~ Q I
~. i I i
l "'" I H
Hm~m
i!ilJi~! I"l
11li!~
""'lI!i'l !~I
i.
, I'll
,II-
'M
hi!
,-I
d~il
"
If
Im'-
Q Ll~,;iJ ;
~ I ~ '"
-!;
~. -I
,
..., ..: =
~ -; i-~ ~_
E~2 E~
~~~ ~ u 'e0"
<<.
;;
~
w
.
.
~g-
0-
i!11
~
.~
~ ~
~
.
~
.
~~~
~"':;I
"'~o
'0-
~~w
~~~
.>2
's
i.
.~
~a
"
~
~...~.
. . I
. '\r
. . 0
.. :;;,
. UNA
, r-----
~. . , ,~
F!lllIlrgi
ili.llQ I '~l
'd 'Ii'
..,.' 1""I!~li
. ~ I. JIP,
f! . d't:
!III nl' ,'~f, ~ ','I,'
.111 If' Ii .:
jll. r' , - 'II i'
IlII I'll 'III' II l,~ II
i~d 'I ' ,Hlt t~
!:~ll ',. "i :':' I,I!
.'nll ,I, II II
~
;;
"
:ii.
~~.
~5
i
9 ::>
~
.
li
~
,
II
UJJJJ
· II Ii I~ . ~i t w~~
I.~! ~i~ in..~! _ . Ij . , ~.. ,.p . !~S ~ .
11m!! I ~;m ! II~in I.lln I ~un 1.lIn I 1I.f;; i~~ ~ ! II
II., I I . . .. i ~ tl f t II',
I 'lll -. Ii i i Ii . i ii' iii' j I I il fl4 i! "-~ 8. .~ l
"/llllllj .!/li "" !Ii! P I IiI! Il, I H'~~ l~i~~J.f
":1 illd ,lllP 1'111 r-n1jl,ilhll r'lhil .III,J i'II~II'~d.J'!iJ<~~"~~'~~ll~
. ..." Illllhl Hillin! Lilli!!' Hlji!!!lllldlillll~IlHII~dlm ~!Km Milllll~IWi~J"lij'f.;iU tl
Q
'1 '
!
'~~l,
.,t.';
.'JI.' ~.,;
j.,' :
'"",
"'O~
~ '.'
-n
~
o
~
~
~
" -
fi..~
<!9
a~8.
; .,
'.
, .
.112f ' '.'i~"F ii!
Ilhdll~lInd ~d!t I flllH I~.ilt
,>
,', '~" 'J!' ,:'
:,,;,..i , .. '
, ' ',-' iI" . ~p ,
, " i " ,fi~~if!!"l;'
"",., ~ J1JdI"i.ig! L.t;!,
c
<t..~
~~
~t1.
t
"I'
" ,II.I
I<~
~' .
if! l1fi ~l5
'jMib Inij~
I~~""~ "d2;
,_.1
" j .i
~Ii -I ~i .
ul:m h!di
, 3"
I E'~i
,.~..
,h~.~.
i
.
I ~I -
h~I!1
i5
~. il
,_I 5 '
Jii .!1~i
di--
h,;~~~,
'!~!Ii ~ "
I.I~! ! if;
", ~il >Ii'
v
, \
\,
,alIG'I~ :,
" ,-,,/.
,,'
~ :~~'":
_ .'"
!,'
",-
, !.," "::
,.,'
--.>,,-
-', '
FJ!itlin~11
tJ.~ I II,
lifU~l! ill!
li!1llP.I'i"i
~llilll' 1111
ellUft II.!
I
~ IIIII
.I<l<l<l<l<l
....--" ._-_..",'-'_"_.~'- ,-
--~
I ,~i ~a
I .~. ~..
I lml! I diU
" ii -
. ~ ! o.
e ..
h. ~ I I!~!
!.i.lb h.~aa
3. ·
.- .
I .;; - , o~ .
I~nn IIMI
~ti
~. i!
'Iii ~.i
d 1,-
~..~~~
W
0::<:
::J'"
13~
::J'"
0:: >
.....5
CIl~
C)~
~c
~z
0::<(
<( .
ll."E
....'"
CIl -
~~
w
0::
::J
13
::J
0::<::
....'"
CIlii:
C)-
z'"
-~
~...J
<('5
ll.o
....0::
CIl~
w'"
~~
"ll~
!iJi ,I ~
al,! ,l-
I ,.\ ~ I'
" ~ e
"-~
~ ....
\J7 l
I
I
,
~
\
i .------......-,
I L_I_......
1 Z 1
1 w~o 1
I a::.....,- t
I =>c:(~ I
\ I-D::<( \..
J ::)<(0.. I ~
I u.<9x 1
: w:
1 I
~l r1n--:--=..r~=l-
-11--11=
~ ~ ~
- =llllliD
~( -=
,,~
in~
=11==11
~
ll1 J-lilllllll \ Id!lllllllll !;JL,
,
Ii
'''\ II gi 1
LJ 111111 ;1111~lllllll Pl"-j"~1111 q ,
, .~I~IIIIIIILLllliJ II =.ilL
';"OTI~II 1IIIIIIIm - ,
. Cl'I'il~~J:Y
.~II~
"'0"
111 dlllll .
I
J
fI\:IllII~'11
P'!l!ij, II!
.. . ',..'. r~! W!
.Ir.!!!li
, " 1~1!1ij: !'/I
, Coo ,I.
J
mil
<I<I<l<J< <l
s 0" ;;
,li, ~..i _ t;!!!
II-~~;~~;-
li~~b!IUm
" i _
. ~ oi
i~ ~ _ ~'.
li~.~I~IIIM~
uM.;h.Ua
~.
I ~; -
l~nU
Ii
.
Ide
Ih!1I
a5
~" I
Iii In
I ~..g__ .
'I; 151 .,.ID
f,. I~ 5 .
..*~~ ![
i"ll ~; i l .
. "" d~
~~
-~ti
" ~ffi
~ ~ffi
, ~R.9"___...
/"
/ ' "
~.
,@fQ}J:'f'i'
~ ,. '!'
,; <:/ i
!
,'~-~,~=""","-=..",.,,-",-,,-..:
=n\-'~-t"'r
,-_..'.' ~
=
I
I
I
..
"
I
!
iii
..
06
~
~
fJ
;: ;1 r! ;]
.. 0-. ~
., I
!. ,
. "
l~ !
. I
: I
, J.
;H
,
..
z z
" :5
Ii
w ";
~ !
ti
w
S li z ~
~ ;
Z L
; " L
~ ~ "
~ " " ~
~ ii .. 2
" " ~
.. .. z ..
" . ~ .
z
;;
~
, ~ ~
w
'~ ~
~
~ ~
~
------_................-
~_w
fJ
'I'
w
~ z
~
u :l
w ,~
w li li
t ~ t ~
w ~ m ~
E 0 0
!< !<
l;; .. l;; ..
il i! ~ i!
~ 0 ~
u u
~ ~
0 0
" z
FJ
;u
~;
f!I
~
L
Z:'.
0'
Ii ~
::f-J:
:;~:-~(
,,~. !;
::"'.=:;:~
1;
l
~l !
:H
]~
:H
t '.'
:;~~~~
Iii ~
:C()
li"-~
z 0
Ii:
l-' c'.
..
.:\
"
,j .1 ,I ..;1 .1 .
,~ ! I ., ~'l H ,I
e e e e e e , ,
~~ ;~
u
U
.
0 ~
*
.
~i ~
E. E i
I~ . .
.. ! I
~; ! .
~ ~
. .
~ i
2
. .
! .
.
fI
II ~
. ~
. i
~
11..'">-
.-H
-~ ''"
...::r:
~-!
:'::.-.':
~.
--:If
......... ~,'
~'J
~! ;:
~
~
<
t
::>>
o
u
a=
w
to-
Z
W
U
~
W
-
>
-,-
I-
w
w
a:
?-
m
z
-
cr:
::!E
::c
I-
:)
o
m
~
w
-
>
o
w
en
f
t-
~
W
~
-
>
--"
t
::)
o
CJ
...
U)
w
==
~
-
>
r
^~ ,--' -.
~~
~~~
-~
~
Ii:
::)
o
u
:c
Ii:
o
z
~
w
-
>
~~
~-. ::
,
/
! . ",,~ ,,,-,, I'.' .,,1
1-
I
I
,
I
s
...
A.
cc
::E
w
z
-
u
~
w
-
>
" ~ ~;- . "
"""'L ""r
r-~ ~I~ ~J;:;
__ ,In,
!l! ~,
I
I I v~! =L I q. 'Ii; O'!~ . I 'iL .
~J!L:, !i~Uhl!IIII!lil>>,!ilIt~lit;J1il JU.lII, '
r-..J 'i ~'l)' I, >.", /"~ :, ^-/
, J ii., ,I "," ';"'.<,'0"/
(!~! "'\ " " ." ' '
~. ' : ',.' '
0'
I'll'
if ,,-
...~-
!,
{ ~,~'
.."
I.'
;\7;f'~ ~ ~,.,
\ i ..,...: ,to
"
.'
,,.0
< '~B>'~;- :" <'...~.'., .
~.
I ;; -
1~~iU
~!L
t. .
I il i!~
II..~~~
I~. D
L; -
r.(
::o!:: ~ ~
9 i ~
~ I'
~ !
, .
I
J11111
.>I<l<J<J<l<l
! Ii l.
I ~'. .-.
II il~ml-I U;~~
h".~_ :.f.a
" j s
~; I - ;.
Id.ilU I la~~
....m..1 hha
;;
.
I,Un
I
I
I
I
I
III
If
11
J
!I
I'
'I
j,
I
]
I
I
I
I
I
I
111I-.... j
I ]
II
'I
I.
'I
I.
II
II
~>,-
CD. ,>>0<"')
,t:: CS ~ lOa....
c:I _ ~ 0
(Q_ : -0..00
... <=1 I<l '"
_ In ~ ~ ..t.
. -.::. I:l) Q
- &
In ca ~ -
_-;~J::;"':
pO~ ;-";
fA =' ., co
s::: en -;; (/l- C
..c ~ '"
- ~ ~:::>..,
~ 0 <=>
u.....c. trJf,f)..-l
\
-,
-
~
~
r--
Z
~
U
~6
Z:s
5~
r--~
5~
B
~
~
r--
:!
.,
.
:
<e:
u
:5
B
IoU
~
IoU
l:-'
\
~
IoU
l:-'
Z
IoU
U
IoU
Z
. ;:;
. 0
l:-'
:S
. ~
U
IoU
~
IoU
l:-'
.. . .
-" ~
- c::-;.
..- .
o
- ~
~ .. .
-..-
.."
....~
..J
-"-
QO:'
.. 0
c:tn";;
.4 ;
c
- "
......4.
~!ll\
i~
n.
-li.l!
2~
""'"
~'i
~.2.
f%
.. t\
i t~
-g ..~..
.s~'i
'" lJ~
1 "..t
p t::.~O
...
..
CD
.e:
a.
5
"0
..
%
..
fJl
~
'"
""
\
~
1;
1
.. i:'
g -e
~ ~
'i. 1
~l<>~
l~t~
~ \ - ~
;;! !!. -% ~
~ ~ f.) ~
i
"
-a.~
~ 6
l~
~... ~
l'5 ~
t\ i\'
~~ !\ 1
~ll ~'~ :g:,
,;'5.. u14 ~
'\l.s~\ "" ~ Q
<:> = '" -\ Ii
1l~ i ,- -'f Q
e-~S~''i~E~
~ !!l z E! "" ~
"
8
~
1
. 0
\ 1
'e g
~ !
g g-
~ "a
l ~
-
Q
't;'tii:I
~,s
.'1
-SB
~ '::
~\\ ~
~
.:'0- ;:s.
~~ ~
'6-\ ~
\t ~ \\i
~- <>
~02, '~ '"
;:;1 ~
~ft a
a l
! ..
~ ~ i
. 'i a
.~ .1> ~
~ ....
~ 1 '"
" 'S
l: ;;; " '"
"
'\
'i
II \
II Ii. ~ ..
Ii. Ii ,S
-ahl~
E ~ t
'e . ;;; %
-.. \
e
~
~
!
r~t~'~\!_~\
,;ll~~~'I!.t~t~
~ ~"fi\~~l~.l!'i
_\l!a.l=-ss~--.
....1J tl4 Co tall ~ ~
-~';!l! -~-- ,=~
~";:,~~","i\iii~ ~
~ i'" i. ;!\l!~e:!.l
\l.\lil:i-~\.s ~&, \
"'~~l ~ih~ %\ ~
\~~-li~Hq\P'l
8 'Il.:a &,t'o i oil ! ~.s ..
I:r.~H~\ -<lllll
lliti\ \U \ \
li\i
~
t
~
~
u
~
6
~
l-J-l
I:-'
\
~
'Z
o
l-J-l
7-
~
I:-'
:1
6
~
l-J-l
I:-'
I
.. . ;)Ii
c
... " ~
.. :i
..-
~ " ~
.. .. ~ ~
.. c
- =
..~ ~
~
- "
.. ..
.. ,
.. .. 0
....
=
0
...... <
!j .C> ~ ~ U~q- 'll"tl bb ~np
~ . '<: ... ... &"1: ~ t::.!!.s ~ ~ ~~ ~
I: ~ ;;i"- ~ "l .. .
~ f}~ 1h ~".l! .5~.s
!'tS> 1 ~.~ ~ i:!~.s i- E'- l::S g~~~~
f'll 2!.a E S .9 o ~ ..
_ U".I::: ~~'" ~.~~'i' E
~:~ ~~ - ~ ~ ol
~! E t '- 'lit::':::: 1'5 t5 a ~
~;tl:~ e"~l · a .0 ,
t).,~ l 'lI ~ ] ~~l "&"i:..o'cr
..,-s-s r:o -1, - l.;'~~Ell..
f~ "&"i ~,:Q ~ 't;~fa~
-s - - <;;, a ]J!~~~ii ~~f~~ ~ ~ rJ ~ ~
\l "i 2 ~".t:: ~.."\i ] oS ~ 3 ~ j""nJ
...h: <11":::\11:] "llSoC)~~
"le~ :l a ~ l3 ~ fa> .tJ!5... '" 1 ~.a u
. "'- c;;:: ~ "tI'~ .. 0- "l"'''a
C"~ E f; ll> t;;f ~~.i-s~-l
CD a. .2~~~~ c"- 'S ,,";iI"-
E:l:J 'S " u ..!ji::'~'l> 02 - -S.l! ~
~~ _<l!l. a- III l:: to! -l-~~ :Q ~ ~ l:: ... ...
CoO t . ~ I! ~~~ ca....J!:c.Z3: III
0;:: t! 1::S ~ ~ P! .- r.. III -E ~ c.
-o-~ - c~-':::6'S
.!: it.s :J ;:Ii: 00>6 "I: ;e'~~.e ~a'~~ .c1i'!t.~fo = ,1lC::};t ~ elo.;
>~ - u",.-.l! CD..c::. U ll.. " cn":::t~ a
.n;;;U .. .. e e il, !! - li ~. ~ "" ~ ~ 0. ~~ ~~~~~~8
U)~~Q" >~~\la~_'O>
.c :::::,,&~ ~~ -" .q 'll" It
u ";i S 5 .5 ~ . s ]..
.. lH 5 .~ tit; l,,~ ~.E-
0 :s .s- :.a't ~.~ E . i:! a
..
Q. U~ on -oij ~~ - "
Q. -S.., 'ij~~ lllf
'" "E;'; ~ -"" ~ g '11-- ]g ~~
'g~ -~
~ II
... a.s ~ ~~ ~ .5 "0 t '" .;;.~
C e ~ 3 . g 11 0
to ~l ~ ~ ~:s a ti'S ~t20 ~ -
.. '" 0. 0'<: " . - . o'l> . '.
.. 'e;:; ~~ Ha ." !j~'fj l; ~ .~
> '0" o . ~ 2 ti :0.5
>] ~ - ~ . . .
;l "'l!~ J!~!'l _ E
u t!l" ~~.s- eH.:i oCI ..... "']
__El' -~e-
.. "- . g'lli; g>~~.i '::::. ~~ '"
:s' ~_00 Ii!i"i ~ ::SoC:01 ~~.s " ",'. @
0 ~t! I ~ ... . " .--s u ~
u::] :s ~.- =~.l!.
C Ci;;:a~ s- s {~U C ~ ~
'" ~~n -"i (,;1_ :ii<l!..~ .!! l:) II>
Oi ~ {t ~ ..~._ .c :!Ill> I! .- u ~ -
"~r~i l! 1.1 ~ ... '" O-ll ::I-t'6~ 5H~
.. O~~.l! 3t~h
c :2;;; t. u... ~ <C~ Q c;;;u W;:JS
-<
u
~
:::>
u
~
~
~
I-
I
~
~
I-
Z
~
u
~
Z
~
o
I-
:)
:::>
u
~
~
~
I-
I
~T
.
,
i
,
I
I
.. c
..Uo
..
,"- .
o
~
:..::~
- ~
.~ :
_ U
U"
CO
.. CO 0
'"c .
~
o
...Oll <
~
E
l!
'"
'"
c
'"
c
=
.c
'"
::i
"8.s
J! a
...~
h
f! ~
.~l
iJ
'll ~
all
~ .
~ll
'- ~
ii~
!l-.l!a
":i:&
~"- ti
'.l! .
.s ij~
~:S"
'''-li"8
-li~~
.s-~-g
ls8
tS"- 'qo
a'~
... ~~
~Li "'"l
.. "'~...,;
.. .::::~
CD \1'"
Ut~
U) !II> "'e
11 ~ ,;
.5$-a.ll
~~~]
.
\
\\
\\
\
')\
~\\
"<:~\' v
10 '')
..~
~,,{,~,
)i-c'\
~
.,,0
~ ~~
c ~ li
. . ~
~r~
t;; ......
p., ~....
~ <:ItS
l1' ~'"
~ ~~
] tt
= ts ~
~ .s Is
~ = ,. 0
E oCl ~ ~
11 ~ 'i'Q>
E ..t! '" ~
. ~ ~a.
~ ~ if.s
~ ~ tl
... - 11"
a ~ u50
~ n
~ 1 ~~
~ t; ~ '~l.
..i ~H ~j
~a ~~~ ..tiS
!i l!l~ ~n
o It: Q~ 0 C,i ~
~~ ~ ~h S ~ ~
"}'" i!,a c ]~~
djii) ~ ~~e tJc!~~
...
~
~
'"
..
...
;;;
~
-Ii
~
-'!
!O
o
'"
~
g
~
.;j
8-
,E>
-li
5
'~
1
F
~
~
u
'5
'.
."
~
.
E
t
,.
"0
g'11
;:I-~ -...
.ci~
.21 'G ~
-' :s ..
'"'lla
1Il ~
ii:~:l:
..
"
~
'\i<
~
."
."
~
]
'"
'"
.
.
a
-ll
.~
..~
o u
-a
~'"
u'"
1l~
~..
:!ii"8
. .
""\:SO=:
II: . .
~J~
ol1~
'".V
Q~~
.. 8.~
>~:f,~
..,..
., i
~".~:t~tllrJtUj(j~j\!1 !1
-J /to.. Ulilll1HllllIt,'1
-
;;;
<:i
~
~
.~
-li
l1'
l!
~
~
~
.
~
'5
'.
~
t.)
!
..-5
~~
=~
.c.
.!!IIi
-'8
't:~
g 2.~
()~@
",,"
lfl-llll
3: ~~
oIl"8~
'..
~~""":
o r!~
Z"5",
"
~-..-:--
r-''''''
1
t
a
..
~
e
'5
-'! ,
'~1
o.
n
."..
...
-'! ,~
,", .
..~
a..
~~
~...
la
~l,
. ~
if~
l~
.2 '"ij
~ ~
'll .
.. ~ a
CD~ ....
c - .
= . .
.c i.~
"'...'"
::i;::~
~ "C
o ~ 2
CD_8
co:e.s
CI~""
111."'-1'0-
..
..~
"'!j
:!
l:-
e
t
~
-<
u
:5
:::>
u
~
~
~
f-<
~
~
f-<
Z
~
u
~
Z
~
o
f-<
:S
:::>
u
~
~
~
f-<
aJ,...,.c,
l!I
~
j
sE
.. Ii
.=" .
'" =: .;
..- ~ ~
~ D i
ilIA '" ~ i
Gl-.=. ~
~ ~
.. 0
11I"_::;
-,,-
,,"
.. "
Cctl~
co. ~
~ ~
v
u..od<
-<
U
E'g IU a~ '" l!!'" :5
Q~a
i~ "l\,.\: ~2.~ ::J
:;}ii ~~
," .. ~.5 j: ~ ~ (J
't <oj _ 0 lIlHl -r
.SJ!! ~ ~ i " 0
c~~ o " I-J.l
;\l~ i~ 'l'I - a_ll
;E~ ~8-; 2.
31 g~u ~:i!l
.;;..l! 'E'" ....I ~ OJ :g -~ ~ I-J.l
o II ~ 0 - t:]~
t- ~-~..,. l a 8 l---'
tl" .2 ,~.~~ Sa\!>
. " ~ E ...
..! {l 'd l '" ..~ 011I.' I
.. III ~\O U,ll,,, a- ~.
t'Du !,,, E"'- c:",t::.;ti p::
] t;~ ... ~'" +I ~ l~
c -ll ~ In ,'"
~ G.~a l>>~-= ~~"l:$ a
a'i -1 ~ Q.""'..c bo~ ;: ~ i CJI ~\Il~ I-J.l
o~~.5c::. _~~~"'a. l---'
:J.s''5 .....o~~..., od~t!;.. -J;t~~i!
I" a-ill'"' .l! - . Z
15 .- ....ai:! ' &. t.9 o tl4l:S 0 \J
U i~ d).!5, 011I \J l!
'.. ",. Oli ~io'" Q. .~t;{;:i:: I-J.l
J! ~ii '" ~U~<Jl 01:;S"t' :St"s-~
~e:::~"'" z~~'6 U
(8 . . . I-J.l
Z
~
l---'
:S
B
~
~
f-<
ii"a.l;ltl ,,0 l!"l! ~~.sJi"';
'$;.1!.~ t1 t~ . Ii . g~~-aU
inn " 0 . - , .~~ ~~~
II . .~o
"0 :t~]ti' ~nd:
l:f:J I
8~ ~~~a :S~lIlJ
"p~l<Jl "'...; ~~~~ ~~ "!:a
';;ij t5a.s!15 ~it~~
lo;i\~ Q VJ ~
~ - iOh~~ 1i.l!~ ~\'l
~ . ~ ~ . iO'}@: >-I.l ~ bO ~~._ ~J!
'" ;16-5~ ~,~J!~~
c 1l~~ i io~
u- '0 "1 ~ . .. .11.~ ~ '"
;: ..1'1 i.u ti,t .~ -ul:g 't::f bC,t)"
-a. cD Q" ";:'" L. '0-- oletl~ ::3sr"C E6
lil q{l.2 ~{l~ o~:a~'"
:J It "" u;:S Q,..3'
II)l~IJ8~ a::l'" ~~.s ~ .! 'fi !.. <::1_ Q
.. .l!~ 1" ~ . ... -'~ ~!. - Q",
... c ~]",,1~ tq .....~..~ .s l; ",]...I>l i
~ -e o~ HH.~ ~
ii~ laB s::l~~ t! ~t j i
~ :IE a ~~ ~:g UJ~ o;i u",- 1 .::
~ . .. . .
II)
.-
......-..-.
" . 0
.c"~
C'O.: -:
o
:.=:~
-;:;
6lJca~
--;;....
u ct ~
.. .
C 6lJ ~
cae ~
~
&&.oI:f.<
li
g
II)
c
ii
:;;
.c
-
::J
o
II)
.
i
.
.E~
&;~
:r
..
I
.
~
-<
u
:S
;::J
u
~
~
~
r--
I
~
~
r--
Z
~
u
\ ~
z
~
0
r--
:5
;::J
u
~
~
~
r--
!
01
C
'"
.c
01
:::i
..
...
II
U
t
g
II)
l!'
l!
o
:J
!
j
,~
.
,
'}
,
. ;
-
I
c
j
,
~
:to
.c
~
...
a.
IV
u
J!J
~
In
..
10 .. 0
=: :~
C'II_ :
o
""..~
...=
-;;
.. IV ~
- ,-
-..~
.:,0-;;;
a:~
,.c ~
.. ~
u..CIfJ~
-'-_.,,'...............
I:!
:f
I
25
<<-
.....J
;J
U
~
~
~
r-
~'
~
r-
Z
~
u
l,l..J
~
~
:5
;J
u
l,l..J
~
l,l..J
r-
I
----
.. . .
.-=:;
..- .
"
~
:.Ctn~
.. ,-
..<;
rn~ ~
-"-
~:;
.."V
!Gel ~
<;
~ 0
"",oIlS 4
~
'"
o
(.)
..
i
oil
t
~
."
c:
..
%
(.)
..
.l!l
c:
3
.
QI
~
01
:l
~
mi
:!
I
~
u
:S
G
~
\oI-l
l-"
I
~
\oI-l
l-"
Z
\oI-l
U
\oI-l
Z
~
1:-'
~
G
~
\oI-l
1:-'
a".,..,,"
~
.. . c ~~
.....0
.. ;;; :f
..- .
Q .,
~ .
x:: In ~ j
.. ::: If
- ~
en ~ :E
_u_
00:=
.. ,
c: . U
~C ==
~
~ u
11.01.<
-<
U
:5
~
u
~
~
~
f--<
~
~
f--<
Z
~
u
~
Z
~
0
f--<
:5
~
u
~
~
~
f--<
..
l!
~
u:
..
..,
..
U
..
LL
0>
C
:2
'5
In
I
.
j
I
\
"- ' 'i:Jf
". ill
. " I
Ii
. I,
.. ~ tj
II ~ I..
~~
1111
II'
Iii
i I
~l
!
'1
.,
---.!
-..~_...
v.
"j
.,
~ 'U
ij ()Z -
"'z
W
Q. n
....
0(
'; I ~
Ill". I
\ .' II II I,
\ nil 1 ,I' ..
~ HII!:;'!!'1I ~'dl
~ II i I
':~ .r,
~, ]1'1' I :.:
"'" .. "
,
"
)~
U'
'r ,"
'T.;"
, .
: ',' p
~'i r ~r
L
'" II! !
~P'llIl"I ,'I
IiIllMmllih: II!
I IHI~""""'"''
///,
q
ll~
i \\
I ...
<i
o 't
~.
,-'" .,}'.
.
.
"
\ ~\
. \\~
\ 1~1
\ \
'(~
,
.~
..
,
~
~
i
'-" \\' \
!\Un\n \ \' '\I'
\\\\\h\m\\i\n\\~
i \\\~~n"ttenll-'ll.lI
----.,--~_.
---"-
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-_
G:lPianning\2006IPAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUP\P\annlnglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
11
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA06-0293, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO EXPAND THE
PROMENADE MALL BY 126,000 SOUARE FEET WITH AN
OUTDOOR LIFE-STYLE MAIN STREET SHOPPING CENTER
CONSISTENT WITH SOUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED IN THE
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO PARKING GARAGES,
FOR THE PROMENADE MALL ADDRESSED AS 40820
WINCHESTER ROAD.
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On October 11, 1994 the City Council approved the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan (SP No. 263) and Environmental Impact Report No. 340;
B. 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. The Development Agreement
was recorded on December 30, 1996 as Document No. 488428 in the Official Records of the
County of Riverside pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 et seq;
, C. On September 26, 2(l06 the City Council approved Ordinance No. 06-10 which
approved the First Amendment to the Development Agreement extending the term of the
Development Agreement to January 16, 2010. The First Amendment to the Development
Agreement was recorded on October 11, 2006 as Document No. 06-0748777 in the Official
Records of the County of Riverside pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq.
Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership ("Developer") is the
successor in interest to the Owners rights in the Development Agreement. The Development
Agreement approved on December 17, 1996, as amended by the First Amendment to the
Development Agreement, approved on September 26, 2006, shall be collectively referred to in
this Resolution as the "Development Agreement;"
D. In adopting Ordinance No. 06-10, the City Council found 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 ("Addendum"). A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk of
Riverside County as required by law on September 13, 2006;
E. On October 3, 2006, Forest City Development filed Planning Application No.
PA06-0293, a Development Plan with a Conditional Use Permit, in a manner in accord with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
F. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
G. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and
environmental review on February 21, 2007, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
G:\Planning\2006\P A06-0293 r. ~._..ade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanning\PC Resolution from PThorson 2.10-07
I
-
. .~.-.
law, at which time the City staff, Developer and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to this matter;
H. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-o293, subject to and
based upon the findings set forth in this Resolution;
I. 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:
DeveloDment Plan oer Section 17.05.01 O.F of the Temecula MuniciDal Code
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula,
Specific Plan No. 263, the Development Agreement, and with all applicable requirements of
state law and other ordinances of the City;
As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for
Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan and
the Retaif Core designation in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The
General Plan has listed the proposed uses, including retail, professional office and
service-oriented businesses, as typical uses in the Community Commercial designation.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan
requires that proposed buildings be compatible with existing buildings. The proposed
commercial uses are compatible with the surrounding commercial buildings currently
located adjacent to the proposed site. Additionally, the Development Agreement
establishes that the Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed additional
structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development Agreement.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare; .
, 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. Additionally, the Development Agreement establishes
that the Developer has a vested'right to construct ,the proposed additional structures in
accordance with the requirements of the Development Agreement.
Conditional Use Permit oer Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula MuniciDal Code
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan
263, the Development Agreement and the applicable provisions of Development Code;
The site is properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the
proposed parking structures. The Development Agreernent establishes that the
Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed additional structures in
accordance -with the requirements of the Development Agreement. The project as
conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of the Development
Agreement, State law and local ordinance.
G:\Planning\2006\P A0IKl293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanninglPC Resolution from PThorson 2-10-07
2
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;
The proposed project 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 because the project has been
designed to integrate with the adjacent architecture and screened in a manner
consistent with the Development Code with landscaping. The building is also compatible
in scale with the surrounding uses and will blend in appropriately.
C. The site for a proposed conditional 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;
The site for the proposed buildings and parking structures is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate the required development features. The Development Agreement
establishes that the Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed additional
structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development Agreement.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional useJs not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community;
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community because the project will provide required parking to serve the
commercial development and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to.comply
with all uac and UFC standards.
Section 3. Environmental Determinations.
A. hi accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the
City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has considered the proposed
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission has also reviewed
and consiqered 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, the City Council's approval of
the Addendum to the FEIR on September 26, 2006, and the subsequent environmental reviews
of development plans for the Mall following approval of the Development Agreement. Based on
that review, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit 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. '
S. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit do not involve significant new effects, do not change th!3 baseline
environmental conditions, and do not represent new information of substantial importance which
shows that the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit will have one or more significant
effects not previously discussed in the FEIR and Addendum. The Development Agreement
provides that the Developer has vested rights to proceed with the proposed expansion of the
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanning\PC Resolution from PThorson 2.10-07
3
Mall and the parking structures. All potential environmental impacts associated with the
proposed Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit are adequately addressed by the prior
FEIR and the Addendum approved as part of the extension of the Development Agreement.
Any impacts concerning aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public
services, recreation, transportation/traffic, u1i1ities and service systems, were all studied as part
of the FEIR and Addendum. The prior app'rovals of the Development Agreement and the
extension of the term of the Development Agreement by the First Amendment to the
Development Agreement based on the FEIR and Addendum establish that the mitigation
measures contained in the FEIR and the terms of the Development Agreement will reduce those
impacts to a level that is less than significant. The Application for PA 06-293 is the vehicle by
which the City confirms that the standards and requirements established in the Development
Agreement for the Developer's vested right to construct the expansion of the Mall and the
parking structures have been properly implemented and does not provide for any new structures
or uses not fully contemplated and addressed in the Development Agreement. Therefore, a
Notice of Determination pursuant to Sectiont5162 of theCEOA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.
15164) is the appropriate type of CEOA documentation for the Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit, and no additional environmental documentation is required.
C. Although not required as part of the C-EOA review, the Commission reviewed a
Supplemental Traffic Analysis for the Promenade Mall Expansion, prepared by RBF Consulting
. which dete,rmined "that cumulative trip generation estimated for the approved Promenade
MalVPower Center I and II, Costco, Bel Villagio/Overland Corporate Center, and proposed
Promenade Mall Expansion project falls within the Specific Plan total included in the original EIR
Traffic Study previously approved by the City." The analysis concluded that "the Promenade
Mall Expansion project, as currently proposed, is consistent with the original Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan EIR Traffic Study". In addition to the mitigation measures incorporated into
the project by the FEIR, the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan, the City entered into a
Settlement Agreement with the County of Riverside, dated as of May 2005, in which the County
has agreed to required development in the 1-215 Area to become part of a fully and funded
Community Facilities District for the construction of various roadways designed to reduce the
traffic on Winchester Road. '
D. The custodian of records for the Initial Study and FEIR for the Development
Agreement and Specific Plan No. 263, the Addendum prepared in connection with the First
Amendment to the Development Agreement extending the term of the Development Agreement,
and all other material$, which constitu1e the record of proceedings upon which the Planning
, Commission'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 the Planning
Department of the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Section 4. Ap'Drovals. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA 06-0293 subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth
on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
G:\Planning\2p06\P A06-0293 r, __..,Jlde Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanninglPC Resolution from PThorson 2.10-07
4
. -..----"
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 21 st day of February 2007.
Dennis Chiniaeff, 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 Resolu1ion No. 07- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of
February 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUP\Planning\PC Resolution from PThorson 2-10-07
5
,
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
G:\Planning\2006\P A06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUP\Planning\PC Resolution from Pfhorson 2.10-07
6
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDmONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA06-0293
Project Description: A Development Plan' (PA06-0293) to expand the
Promenade Mall by 125,950 square feet with an outdoor
life-style main street shopping center consistent with
square footage allowed in the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit is
requested to construct two parking structures (west
garage, 2 levels, 90,800 square feet and east garage, 4
levels, 332,500 square feet). The project site is located at .
the Promenade Mall, between Macy's and Edwards
Cinema, addressed as 40820 Winchester Road.
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 910-420-05 thru-09
MSHCP Category: Not Applicable per Development Agreement
DIF Category: Not Applicable per Development Agreement
TUMF Category: Retail Commercial
Development Mitigation
Fee: $2.00/SF per Development Agreement
Approval Date: February 21,2007
Expiration Date: February 21, 2009
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicanVdeveloper 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)
County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination. If within said
48-hour period the applicanVdeveloper 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)).
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanning\DRAFT MASTER COAs working copyl.doc
, 1
I
GENERAL REOUIREMENTS
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expanslon OP CUPlPlanninglDRAFT MASTER COAs wol1<ing copy1.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 Departmentfor
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 thil> condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all a,ction 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. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula
Regional Center EIR.
6. 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.
7. 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 3 one-year extensions of
time, one year at a time.
8. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
9. A Master Sign program will be required. A separate application to the Planning Department
shall be submitted prior to installation of any signs on the proposed buildings.
10. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and
elevations contained on file with the Planning Department.
11. A Development Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission (as a
current business item), shall be submitted for the architectural elevations of the retail and
restaurant buildings, as well as the mall entrances (new and existing remodels), and four-
sided elevations of the parking structures before building permits are issued for the
respective buildings.
12. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive plan for fa98de improvements and signage
modifications to the existing mall buildings/signs for the review and approval of the City to
ensure the expansion is compatible with the existing center.
G:lPlanning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanning\DRAFT MASTER COAs woo1<ing oopyl.doc
3
L
.~, ~-'."-_.".'_.._..,.-
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash bins utilized on the site. These shall be
clearly labeled on site plan.
16. Parking for the project shall be shared across the site, including parking spaces in all lots
that are a part of the project. If the project involves multiple lots, the applicant shall submit to
the Planning Department a copy of a recorded Reciprocal Use Agreement, which provides
for cross-lot access and parking across all lots.
17. The applicant shall provide 75 park and ride spaces on the upper level of the east parking
garage. At the request of the developer, and approval by the City, these spaces may be
relocated from time to time. The spaces shall be dedicated and striped prior to issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy.
Public Works Department
18. A Grading Permit 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.
19. 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.
20. All improvement plans, grading plan shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvemerits contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
21. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and pennanent
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.
Building and Safety Department
22. 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.
23. Approval of this project Is contingent upon the reconciliation of the items of the
application that are not shown as complying on the documents su!Jmltted for review
and approval by the Building Official. These items remaining for code interpretation
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 .' ,. ..,'. "ade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlannlnglDRAFT MASTER CO^" working copyl.doc
4
---'~'.' .'--...
and approval by the City of Temecula will be addressed during the plan review
, process and are as follows:
a. Detaiis to resolve the code intent for means of egress from Buildings A, B, C, 0 and
G through Service, Areas is required for review and approval prior to submitting for
plan review. Include the egress path for the multi-floor exit t the rear of the existing
mall building to the north of Building A.
b. Comprehensive details for accessible parking to address number of accessible
spaces, van and car, dimensions for width and length, and locations to be provided
prior to submittal for plan review.
c. A comprehensive plan to demonstrate accessible paths of travel to accessible
buildings and the public right of way for the site specific to the expansion shall be
provided prior to submittal for plan review.
d. Please clarify before submittal for plan review that the location of the assumed
property line to the rear of Building G does preclude the ability to have secondary
egress openings along the rear of the building. '
Fire Prevention
24. During remodeling and/or addition construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will
be maintained in working order and up to their original design and performance
specifications (CFC art.87 et al).
25. 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.
26. 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 4,000 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 hour duration. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A).
27. , The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. 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 an 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).
28. FDC(s) shall be located within 50ft. of a public hydrant, on the right of way and free standing
away from the building on the same side of the street of the building. PIV's need to be 3-feet
from the FDC's. FDC's and PIV's will all need to labeled with addresses for the building in
which they are serving.
29. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building coristruction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2).
, '
30. During building construction, slllocations where structures are to be built or altered shall
maintain approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanning'DRAFT MASTER COAs working copy1.doc
, 5
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). '
31. Additions affecting/adjoininglfacing near other existing structures may need to be protected
or built of rated construction in accordance with code, or as an alternate method to mitigate
other code conflicts and or requirements. These specific requirements will be addressed
during the plan review process and compliance will be considered part of these conditions.
Community Services Department
32. The developer shall contact tl)e City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction and demolition debris. Orily the City's franchisee may haul construction and
demolition debris.
33. All Trash Services areas shall include a trash enclosure for two (2) bins dedicated to
recycling or a separate. compactor dedicated to recycling, i'n addition to the trash
compactors.
34. The developer shall coordinate with the City's franchised hauler as to the specifics of the
compactors.
35. The Trash Service area for Building I, which dees not have a trash compactor; shall have
trash enclosure space to accommodate a minimum of four (4) trash bins with at least one
dedicated to recycling.
36. Recycling cans shall be located adjacent to public trash cans along the "Main Streef'
shopping area and within the parking structure.
37. As per municipal code, all trash compactors shall be serviced a minimum of once per week
and all refuse containers for restaurants shall be serviced at least twice per week.
38. All landscaping, fencing and on site lighting shall. be maintained by the business
maintenance association.
Police Department
39. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding all buildings and parking
structures are kept at a height of no more thim three feet (3') or below the ground floor
windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be
intruders from breaking into the buildings or parking structures utilizing lower level windows.
a. Applicant shall ensure all trees surrounding all building roof tops and parking
structures be kept at a distance so as to deter roof accessibility by "would-be
burglars." Trees also act as a natural ladder. Prune tree branches with at least a 6
feet clearance from the buildings and parking structures.
b. Any burms should not exceed 3' in height.
c. The placement of all landscaping should be in compliance with guidelines from
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).
40. Lighting; All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-~aving and
minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting
G:\Plannlng\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlannlnglDRAFT MASTER COAs working copy1.doc
6
Ordinance, California Government Code 8565. Furthermore,recommend all exterior lighting
be in compliance with Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance 665 requiring low-pressure sodium
lighting.
, a. Recommend all exterior doors have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed
above each door. The doors should be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot
candle illumination at ground level, evenly dispersed.
b. All exterior night lighting should be wall mount light fixtures to provide sufficient
lighting during hours of darkness and to prevent problems on the premises.
c. The Governors Order to address the power crisis became effective March 18, 2001.
This bill calls for a substantial reduction from businesses to cut usage during non-
business hours. The order, in part, states: "All California retail establishments,
including but not limited to shopping centers, auto malls and dealerships, shall
substantially reduce maximum outdoor lighting capability during non-business hours
. except as necessary for the health and safety of the public, employees or property."
d. "Failure to comply with this order following a warning by law enforcement officials
shall be punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 in
accordance with section 8565 of the California Government Code."
41. Hardware: Recommend all doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other
miscellaneous hardware is commercial or institution grade.
42. Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings should be removed or painted over
within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Report all crimes to the Temecula Police
24-hour dispatch center (951) 6~6-HELP.
43. Alarm System: Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alann
system installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company, to
notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi-tenant
officeslsuiteslbusinesses located within a specific building should have their own alarm
system. This requirement is void if business is operated 2417.
, 44. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches should be painted "International Orange."
45. Public Telephones: Any public telephones located on the exterior of the buildings and
parking structures should be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a
"call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones
installed within the interior of the buildings or parking structures.
46. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be
marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code.
47. Crime Prevention:
a. All retailing businesses shall contact the California Retailers Association for their
booklet on the California Retail Theft Law at: California Retailers Association 1127-
11th Street, Suite 1030, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916)443-1975. PenalCode490.5
affords merchants the opportunity to recover their losses through a civil demand
program.
b. Business desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the Crime
Prevention and Plans Unit of the Temecula Police Department.
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlailnlng\DRAFT MASTER COAs wol1dng copyl.doc
7
L
c. Employee training regarding retail theft, credit card prevention, citizen's arrest
procedures, personal safety, business security, shoplifting or any other related crime
prevention training procedures is also availabl~ through the crime prevention unit.
d. Any business that serves or sell any type of alcoholic beverages will comply with all
guidelines within the Business and Profession Codes and all other guidelines
associated with the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. Contact the
Temecula Police Department for inspections and training for both employees and
owners. This includes special events held at business location where alcohol will be
serviced for a fee and the event is open to the general public.
e. The Temecula Police Department affords all retailers the opportunity to participate in
the "Inkless Ink Program." At a minimal cost of less than $40.00 for inkless inkpads,
retailers can take a thumbprint of every customer using a personal check to pay for
services. 'A decal is also posted on the front entry of the business-advising
customers of the "Inkless Ink program in use". If the business becomes a victim of
check fraud, the police department will be able to track the suspect with the
thumbprint.
G:\Plannlngi2oo6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanningIDRAFT MASlER COAs wooong copy1.doc
8
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:\Plannlng\2006\PAOfl.{)293 Proll1enade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanningll)RAFT MASTER COAs working copy1.doc
9
---'.-~~
Planning Department
48. The construction plans shall indicate the installation of bicycle and motorcycle parking
facilities consistent with Section 17.24.040 of the Development Code.
49. Provide the Planning Department with a cQPY 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.
50. 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, subjectto review and approval by the
Director of Planning.
51. 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
imrriediately 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 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
52. A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Department of Public Works. The precise grading
plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect
adjacent public and private property.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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 ground shaking and liquefaction.
56. 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
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanning\DRAFT MASTER COAs worldng copyl.doc
10
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.
57. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Gradirig,
Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's
standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control.
58. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for
Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number
(WDIO) 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.
59. Eliminate the parking stalls next to the West Entrance of the West Parking Structure to
provide an adequate stacking distance prior to exiting the structure. The design of the
ingress access shall be one way in order to reduce traffic interference in the stalls adjacent
to the exit. The design of the parking stalls and stacking distance shall be approved by the
Director of Public Works.
60. Remove the nine parking stalls that are located on the access road on the East side of the .
East Parking Structure. This will eliminate conflicts with ingress and egress from the Ring
Road. '
61. The proposed location and design of the West Entrance on the East Parking Structure shall
be as approved by the Director of Public Works.
62. 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. Building and Safety Department
c. City of T emecula Fire Prevention Bureau
d. Department of Public Works
63. 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.
64. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
65. Precise grading plans shall confo,rm to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
approval by the Director of the Department of Public Work~. The following design criteria
shall be obseryed: ,
Fire Prevention
66. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 ,
G:\Planning\2006\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanning\DRAFT MASTER COAs worldng copy1.doc
11
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 project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2)
67. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020).
68. 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).
69. Fire Department vehicle access roads shal,l 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).
70. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14).
71. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a tumaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4).
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAQfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanning\DRAfT MASTER COAs wortdng copy1.doc
12
I
I
- . ~ ".---
,-<~-
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
G:\Planning\2006IPA06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPIPlannlnglDRAFT MASTER COAs wortdng copy1.doc
13 .
,.-"-"--- --
.,'".,--"----'-
Planning Department
72. A Development Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission(as a
current business item), shall be submitted for the architectural elevations of the retail and
restaurant buildings, as well as the mall entrances (new and existing remodels), and four-
sided architecture for the parking structures before building permits are issued for the
respective buildings.
73. Prior to issuance of building permits for the retail or restaurant buildings, Building"
Construction Plans shall include details for outdoor areas (including but not limited to
trellises, lighting, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape to match the style of the building
subject, as well as details of screening mechanisms for all loading and service areas, to the
approval of the Planning Director.
74. Prior to issuance of building permits for the retail or restaurant buildings, details of the
service drive aisle and service area at the west plaza/new Macy's entrance shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Director to ensure no pedestrian/service truck conflicts exist.
75. 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.
76. All downspouts shall be internalized.
77. Prior to issuance of building permits for the retail or restaurant buildings, 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. Olive Trees shall be planted within the outdoor plaza at the proposed 'new mall
entrance' between Buildings A and B (in lieu of the palm trees illustrated on the
conceptual plans).
d. Provide an agronomic soils report with the construction landscape.plans.
e. One copy of the approved grading plan.
f. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
g. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
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.
G:\Planning\2OO6\PA0fl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanningIDRAFT MASTER COAs working copy1.doc
14
.,..._,,--"-." .
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 (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.
j. Surface parking areas affected by this expansion shall meet the Specific Plan
requirement of 50% shading of the parking areas by trees.
78. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show
and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a 3' clear zone around fire
c/leck 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.
79. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange".
80. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on
a 9-inch 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
81. 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. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800. .
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of T emecula Standard No. 400.
82. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be accepted by the City prior to the first
building permit. The WQMP will be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and include site
design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment mechanisms.
83. Prior to a building permit for the retail & restaurant portion of the project the applicant must
provide a design to realign the middle access road from Bel Villagio to the Main Street
access road of the new expansion.
84. Prior to issuance of a building permit for buildings "A", "C" & "E" of the retail and restaurant
portion of the project, a lot line adjustment between parcels 1 & 2 shall be approved and
recorded with the County Recorders Office.
G:\Planning\2006\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanning\DRAFT MASTER COAs working copyl.doc
15
85. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
86. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets:
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic device systems.
b. Storm drain facilities,
c.
Sewer and domestic water systems
Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
Minimum road widths of 22-ft. paved with 26-ftJ30-ft. right-of-ways or easements
(shown on typical section).
Knuckles are required at all 90 degree 'bends' in the road.
Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards (200-ft.
minimum). '
Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards.
Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should
be identified on the site plan).
Parallel parking immediately adjacent to the. private streets shall be located a
minimum safe distance from intersections.
Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to the seryice areas. If so,
configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be reviewed and
approved by TCSD and the Department of Public Works.
All intersections shall be perpendicular (90 degrees).
d.
e.
1.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
I.
87. The building pad shall be certified to have been substaritially 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.
88. The Developer shall pay to the Development Mitigation Fee in compliance with the Planning
Application No. PA96-o333 (Development Agreement) and the Planning Application No.
PA06-o197 (Development Agreement Amendment #1); the terms as identified in section (3)
of item 6 of said Development Agreement. This fee is in lieu of the signal mitigation and
development impact fees.
89. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western 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
These remaining conditions of approval are applicable to the elements of the mall expansion that
/lave been determined to comply with code. '
G:\P/annlng\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlP/anning\DRAFT MASTER COAs wor1<lng copy1.doc
16
90. 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.
91. A receipt 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 Scl]ool
Mitigation Fees.
92. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
93. Show all building setbacks.
94. Separate building electrical service supply, independent of any tenant building service
supply shall be provided for the purpose of providing power for the operation of exterior
lighting, landscape irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems. The location of such
electrical service supply shall be clearly shown on plans at time of submittal for plan review.
95. All buili:ling and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1 , 1998)
96. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of all buildings.
97. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
98. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
99. 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 (unless otherwise approved by the City Manager).
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'
100. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
101. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review.
102. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
103. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
G:\Planning\2006\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlannlnglDRAFT MASTER COAs wor1<ing copy1.doc
17
."""""--_..-_.
1 04. Please be advised of the following shell building/complete building policy in the City of
Temecula 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
attached Building and Safety Department policy in determining the course of your design
work and subsequent submittal.
105. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
106. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
Fire Prevention
107. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish three copies of the water
system plans directly 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 ).
108. Prior to building permit, 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 ( CFC see 902).
109. Prior to issuance of building permits, fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted for the Shell
portion of the building. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval.
Three sets of plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention
Bureau. If an installing contractor has not been awarded, then sprinkler plans can be
submitted by a licensed registered Fire Protection Engineer in the State of California.
Sprinkler plan submittal for the tenant improvement portion of the building will be required to
be submitted when building tenant improvement plans are submitted.
110. Prior to issuance of building permits, fire alarm plans shall be submitted for the Shell portion
of the building. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three
sets of plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. If
an installing contractor has not been awarded, then alarm plans can be submitted by a
licensed registered Fire Protection Engineer in the State of California. Alarm plan submittal
for the tenant improvement portion of the building will be required to be submitted when
building tenant improvement plans are submitted.
Community Services Department
111. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
G:\PlanningI2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanninglDRAFT MASTER COAs working copy1.doc
18
J
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT .
G:\PlanningI2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlannlng\DRAFT MASTER COAs working copy1.doc
19 .
L
Planning Department
112. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the parking structures shall be substantially completed (at
least one structure shall be operational).
113. Prior to certificate of occupancy, 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.
114. Prior to certificate of occupancy, 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.
115. Prior to certificate of occupancy, performance securities, in amounts to be detennined 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
Departmentfor a period of one yearfrom 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.
116. 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."
I
117. 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.
118. 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.
119. The applicant shall provide 75 park and ride spaces on the upper level of the east parking
garage. At the request of the developer, and approval by the City, these spaces may be
relocated from time to time. The spaces shall be d~dicated and striped prior to issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy.
G:lPlann1ng\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall expansion DP CUPlPlanninglDRAFT MASTER CoAs working copy1.doc
20
.--~._-,- ~.
120. Prior to certificate of occupancy, security cameras, and other security measures, shall be
installed an operational on parking structures and along Main Street.
121. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
Public Works Department
122. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP
have been constructed arid installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for
immediate implementation.
123. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, ,the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies: '
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
124. 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.
125. 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
126. 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).
127. 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 shall have a minimum twelve (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 on both the front and rear doors (CFC
901.4.4).
128. 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
(CFC Article 10. CBC Chapter 9). '
129. 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).
130. 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\2006\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanning\DRAFT MASTER COAs working copyl.doc
21
131. All 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). .
132. 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.
133. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention
for approval.
G:\Plannlng\2006\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion OP CUPlPlanning\DRAFT MASTER COAs working copy1.doc
22 '
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
G:lPlanning\2OO6\P_93 Promenade Mall ~on OP CUPlPlanning\DRAFT MASTER COAs working copy1.doc
23
134. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 18, 2006, a copy of which is
attached.
135. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Districfs transmittal dated October 9, 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\2006\PA0fl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanninglDRAFT MASTER COAs working copy1.doc
24 '
~~
o COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE . HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY 0
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
October 18, 2006
City ofTemecula Planning D...",,"H"wt
P.O. Box 9033 .
Temecu1a, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Cheryl KitzerowlMatt Peters
RE: Development Plan No. PA06-0213
To Whom It May Concern:
D..."....:.........: ofEnviron......._;..I Health has reviewed the deveL,,~..._l plan to construct a l26,square /Dot
outdoor life-style main street shopping center at the P..,........ade MalL Water and sewer services are
being provided.
1. PRIOR TO mE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING
SHOULD BE REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the "yy..,y.:...e water district.
b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets of plans for each /Dod establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food
Facility Plan Examiners at (951) 461.0284.
\U1I~ @ ~ G ~U ~ m
\ill Oel 2 3 2006 WI
\U\ _\
~L= --
local Enforcement Agency' P.O. Box 1280, Riverside. CA 92502-1280 . (909) 955.8982 . FAX (909) 781.9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Roar, Riverside. CA 92501
land Use and Water Engineering' P.O. Box 1206. Riverside, CA 92502,1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (9091955,8903 . 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Roor. Riverside. CA 92501
@
BaIIha
later
Board of Directors
Ben R. Drake
President
Stephen J. CoI'Oll8.
81'. Vice President
Ralph R. Daily
Uaa D. BeI'llUUl
John E. JIoatIand
Michael R. MeMillan
wUUam Eo Plummer
om,.""
Brian J. Brady
""""'"-
Phillip L F0rbe8
Assistant General Manager I
ChieCFinancial Officer
E. P. "Bob- Lemons
"""""'or_
.....,. R. Louek
Director of Planning
JeffD. Armstrong
eon....n.r
KeW E. Garda
nistrit1; Secretary
C. Michael Cowett '
Best Best A Krieger UP
""""'" CounooI
,
'\
October 9, 2006
~ ~ @ ~ 0 iiV ~ ~'I
<.. ii"
J"U OCT 1 6 2006 :;
Cheryl Kitzerow and Matt Peters, Project Planners
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
By
SUBJECT: W ATER AVAILABILITY
PROMENADE MALL EXPANSION
PARCEL "B" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA02-0179,
PARCEL "B" OF LOT LINKADJUSTMENT PAOI-0304, AND
PARCEL NO.5 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28530-1; APN 910-420-
005, APN 910-420-006, APN 910-420-007, APN 910-420-008 AND
APN 910-420-009; PA06-0293
Dear Ms. Kitzerow and Mr. Peters:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-
site water facilities and the completion of fmancial arrangements between RCWD
and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the. cnstQmer 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. AIl
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 DISTRICf
HW,-
Corey F. Wallace, P.E.
. Development Engineering Manager
cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
06\CW:at06S\FEG
,
Raneho California Water Dlstriet
42135WinchesterRoad. PostOffioeBox9017 . Temecula,Califomia925f39..9017 . {95Il296-6900 . FAX(951)296-6860
~.. .~"~J.~~~~n......~
Page lof3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMU~ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
DESCRIPTION: Shell Buildings
APPROVED BY: Anthony J. Elmo, Director of Building and Safety
REPLACES: 5/30/2003
Acceptance of Construction Plans for new commercial buildings shall fit one of the two
(2) following categories:
Shell Building
Complete Building
DEFINITIONS
Shell Buildin\!;- 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 Buildin\!;- 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
G:\Planning\2006\P A06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUP\Building &
Safety\shell building policy.doc '
Page 2 of3
Core Restroom facilities
Complete lighting and mechanical distribution systems
Complete automatic fire sprinkler and alann system, and may have:
Lobby
Corridors
Stairshafts
Elevators
MINIMUM PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL REOUIREMENT!i
Shell Building
Soils Report
Structural Frame
Underground Plumbing Plan
Underground Electrical Plan
Electrical Switchgear Plan
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Plan
Mechanical Equipment Roof Mount Layout Only
Landscapellrrigation Plan (separate submittal)
,Comolete Buildinl;!;
Soils Report
Structural Framel Architectural Plari
Complete Plumbing Plan and schematics
Corriplete Electrical Plan and Load Cales
Complete Mechanical and Energy Plans
Automatic Fire Sprinkler and Alann Plans
Landscape and hrigation Plan (separate submittal)
RELEASE OF UTILITY REOUIREMENTS
Shell Buildinl!- House Meter Oulv
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
Comolete Bnildinf-House Meter Onlv
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
G:\Plarming\2006\P A06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUP\Building &
Safety\shell building policy.doc
Page 3 of3
RELEASE OF TENANT IMPROVEMENT PERMIT
Shell BuildiOl!:- Release of Tenant Improvement Permit will Not Be Issued Until After
the Release of the House Electrical Meter '
Comolete Buildio~- 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
G:\Planning\2006\P A06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUP\Building &
Safety\shell building policy. doc
ATTACHMENT NO.4
INITIAL STUDY
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAOfl.{)293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
12
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 Temecula
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 ..........................................................................................J............... ,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
TemocuIa RegIonal Center
lnltial StudyI083106
-ii-
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
.._...,~.'
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES
Figure 1
Regional Location
Figure 2
Site Location
Temecula Regional Center
IritiaI Study1083106
-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
T emecula, 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 ofTemecula 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 Rgures 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 Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan.
6. projecrt Sponsor:
Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P.
II. PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Background, Purpose, and Need
The City of Tem6Cula 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 ofretail commercial space and parking facilities within the T emecula 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 T emecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 263)
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 T emecula Regional Center allows up to 2,483,000 square feet of development.
The extension of the Development Agreement would coritinue the agreement with the City under
T_ReglonalCenlsr
1_ Study1083106
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
alternative 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,
CorelSupport Retail
Business Park/Office .40-1 5.491 810,000
Subtotal 175.26 I 2,483,000
Roads 26.041 0
I Project Total 201.30 I 2,483,000
TemocuIa Regional Center
Initial Study/Oll3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
The Temecula 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
(Square Feet)
Approved
and/or under
construction
(Square Feet)
Total Existing
and/or approved
(Square Feet)
Mixed Use
Retail, Commercial, CorelSupport
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, Temecula 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) T emecula Regional Center
Specific Plan (SP No. 263) in the City of Temecula bound by Winchester Road to the north,
Margarita Road to the east, OvE!rland 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. CConstruction is envisioned as
occurring between early 2007 and late 2009 and is estimated to encompass approximately one year
to complete during this peiiod.
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 Cemr
InIIIaI SIudy/003106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
IN mAL 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 infrastl1,lcture (electricity, water, sewer, and natural gas) exists at the project site throughout
the Specific Plan area. Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road and Overfand Drive provide
general access to the project vicinity.
Other Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
The developer must submit a Notice of'lntent (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 subjectto 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 Temecula 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 T emecula 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 overtime 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 IlOnstructi6n of the final phase of the Temecula Mall as provided for in the Temecula
, ,
Temocula RegIonal Center
lnlllal Study1083106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
I
City ofT emecula
Temecula Regional Cenler
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 CEOA 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, CEOA 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 CEOA 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;
(8) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) 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 emecuIa Regional Center
I_StudyI083IOG TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
Cily oITemeoula
Temeoula Regional Center
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 alternative.
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 ofTemecula was the, Lead Agency for the certified EIR. Thus, in this case the City, acting
as the CEOA 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 CEOA
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 s~cond 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
subsequentEIR shall be prepare!l 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 CEOA 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 and 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 CEOA procedure to implement for the proposed project. To comply with CEOA and the
CEOA Guidelines, this Initial Study is being prepared to determine if environmental impacts of the
TernecUa Regional Center
l...al StudylO83l06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL 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 CEOA 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 CEOA 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 impact forecast 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.
Temocula _ Centef
Initial StudylO83l06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
'-<._-"--~.--
City of T emacula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impactthat 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
Biological Resources
Energy & Mineral Resources
Cultural Resources
Geophysical
Hazards
Population & Housing
Transportation/Circulation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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 MmGATED
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 eartier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuantto 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 CEOA environmental
determination for this project.
Name
~4>'n~- ~<;"~
J/~7
Date: f~ ~-c? c...
BY:
'7) /.n-e cAn
Title
TemeadaR_~r
InlllaJ Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
- . ---,
City of Temecula
Temecula R9!lional 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 (N1A).
Issues (and ~ng Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
'"-
Potentlally
Signlllcant
Unless MItigated
Lesslhan
Signlllcant No
'"- '"-
Would the proposal:
Insufficient parking capacity? (N/A)
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 "I'o,.,;ional
impacts.
3) 'Potentially Signiticant Impacf is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the
Planning Department staff lacks information to make a finding ot insignificance. If there are one or
more 'Potentially Significant Impacf entries when the determination is made, an EIRis req'uired.
4) 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated' applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impacf to a 'Less than Significant Impact'. The Planning
Department must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analyses," may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to 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.
.......(8nd__.."..""*
_Iy
Signlllcanl
'"-
PotentIally
Signlllcant
Unless MitIgated
Less .....
Significant" No
"'- "'-
Would the proposal result in potential
impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1, 7)
TerneaJta RegIonal Center
Ir;tial BlUelylO83too
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of T emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the General Plan, and 7 is a USGS topo 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, Temecula Regional Center (Specific Plan 263),
1993/1994.
3. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map: Murrieta, 7.5' Quadrangle .
4. Soil Survey - Western Riverside Area California (1971)
5. Congestion Management Plan (RCTC)
6. Growth Management Plan (WRCOG)
7. Other: South Coast Air Qualitv Manaaeinent District. ACEQA Air Qualitv Handbook@. 1993
8. Other: Southern California Association of Governments 'Regional Comprehensive Plan and
Guide', 1997
9. Other: California Energy Commission, 'Fuels', July 1999
~O.Other: Riverside County Flood Control District 'Sul:!olement A to the Riverside County
Drainaae Area Manapement Plans, and Attachment to Suoolement A' ._1996
11. Other: San DieQp Reaional Water Qualitv Control Board Water Qualitv Control Plan IBasin
Plan11997.
12. Other: California Enerpv Commission 'ELECTRICITY Reoprt'. 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, T emecula Regional Center Traffic Study Update, January
1997.
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 of Temecula, July 1993.
Tomocula ROglonaI ~r
InlUaJ Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL 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):
"-ally
Sl_
"-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mligated
Less than
Significant No
,."... "-
1. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (1 a, 2,15)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdictions
over the project? (1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11)
y
y
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations?
(1a, 1d, 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 for9C8St on pages V-1 to V-ll and V-70 to V.76 and throughout the Temecula Regional
Center EIR. Land use impacts, both direct and indirect, were identilied as being less than significant, with
one exception, from implementing the proposed regional center. The EIR concluded that the utilization 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,
significant adverse land use impact of constructing and operating the Temecula Regional Center (TRC).
1 a. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRC EIFi.; 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 specific 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. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less Than Chara~;o. ;LOj in the TRC ElF!. 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
,..... Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL 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 tt is not within the airport
influence area of any airport.
lc. Imoacts 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 plime farmland
and local important farmland. Therefore, the EIR considered development of the site potentially
significant to agricultural resources. The site is now completely disturbed with most of the stte paved for
parking lots or covered with structures. As such, tt is no longer considered valuable agricultural property
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.
ld. Im~cts 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 withili 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 benefits 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 wiihin an
area developed with amix of uses, Including the regional shopping facilities and high density residential
uses and industlial 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 resulI, utilization
of the stte would be optfmlzed and would support the existing and proposed land uses in the project
area. Thus, it will not be Incompatible with the existing land uses.
The final phase of development of the Temecula Regional Centerwoukl bEi completed duling operation
of the remaining portions of the Regional Center and some disturbance of on-stte traffic would occur.
However, no long-term land use incompatibility with 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 City.
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 with
the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Tomocula Regional 0._
lrlllal Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
--^' ...~ ,...
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
Issues (and SUpporting. . 0;'. Sources):
Potentially
"""oant
"-
Potentially
"'_
Unless Mdgated
Less than
Significant No
Irtpact lrrpact
2. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or resuff in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (1,2,14,15)
b) Police protection? (1,2,14,15)
c) Schools? (1,14)
y
y
y
d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
(1,2,14,15)
y
e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (1,2,14,15)
.
y
f) Other governmental services? (1,14)
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to public services from development of .the project as part of implementation of
the General Plan arefor9C8St 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 signifICant.
The City of T emecula provides certain public services to the City's residents that are an essential component
of the area's transition to a modem urban/suburban community. 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 entities. 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 community residents through taxes or payment of
Development Impact Fees.
"2a. ImDacts 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 with the,
City. "Five fire stations serve the T emecula area and are staffed by both paid and volunteer personnel. '
The closest ,,;..~~.. 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
within a five minute response time of the project site.
This project site has been generally included in the City Fire Protection Master Plan's facility
improvements and staffing increases for T emecula. It is not expected that any new physical facilities for
fire protection will be required to serve the project.
The project site is not within a Wildland Fire Protection Area,l.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 less than significant impact in this area.
TemetIJa Regional Center
InlUaJ Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula RegionalCenter
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 additional mitigation is required beyond the
standard City code and design requirements.
2b. Imoa.cts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EII1. 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 site 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 poliqe services in
response to local traffic accidents.
The City contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for police services. The Sheriffs
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
Callfomia Highway Patrol has jurisdiction along the Interstate 15 freeway.
Mitigation was identified in the EIR to reduce impacts In this area. The proposed project is not forecast
to cause significant adverse impacts to police services and no additional mitigation is required for this
project.
2c. Im~cts Remain the Same or less than Characterized in the TRG. EIR. The Temecula Unified School
District provides public elementary, junior high and high school education for the area surrol,lnding 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 facilities is forecast to result from implementing the proposed project.
2d. Imoacts 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 within 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.
Additional 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
facilities 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 mitigation is required.
2e.lmwcts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would result in the
buildout of an approved specific plan. The City has funding sources in place to maintain roadways and
allocates maintenance funds on an annual basis from its general fund. The ,..,w,..w..ad 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.
21. Imoacts Remain the Same or less than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Impacts to health services,
libraries or other public services are anticipated to b6 less than significant as a result of implementing
the proposed project.
No housing is proposed as part of the 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.
Temecuta Regional Center
InlUaJ Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
.. _. --,- ~. ... .
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL 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 significant adverse impacts from project
implementation. All public service issues are forecast to experience less than significant 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 EIR.
Issues (and SUpportIng . '. "n'. Sources):
Potentially
S1gnlflC8tll:
""oct
Potentially
S1~cant
Unless MItIgated
Less than
Significant No
.."... "-
3. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantia/alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (1, 2, 14, 15)
b) Communication systems? ((1,2,14,15)
c) Sewer or septic tanks? ((1, 2, 14, 15)
d) Solid waste and disposal? ((1,2,14,15)
y
y
y
y
e) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ((1, 2, 14, 15)
f) Storm water drainage? ((1,2,14,15)
y
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to utilities 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 certified TRC Final
EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the FEIR concluded that no significant adverse impacts would affect any utililies.
However, cumulative impacts would remain significant. Standard conditions and a few mitigation measures
were identified 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, either within the existing alignment or along
another alignment; and second, over the long-term the project would utilize a particular utility service, such as
power consumption for street lights, or may alter an existing utility 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 City and County which
T emecuIa Regional Center
InI1IaI Study_'06
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,
i.e., users of the service pay a direct fee to the operator, which commonly includes a fee or a portion of the fee
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 and/or relocation of utility infrastructure would be coordinated with the
appropriate utility.
38. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Southern Califomla 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 b.uildout 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 significant. SCE has local distribution lines on site. 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 California Gas is the natural gas provider to the project site. Demand for natural gas would
increase as a result of developing the final phase of specific plan buildout. Any natural gas
Infrastructure located within the project disturbance area would be protected and/or 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 internet lines, are available in the vicinity of the project area and would
be used as part of project implementation. Any lines within 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR.. Demand for wastewater services would
result from the proposed project. No septic systems would be used to serve this project. Sewer
infrastructure is located within the project area and wastewater would be treated at Eastem Municipal
Water District=s Temecula Valley Wastewater Reclamation Facility. Any sewer or infrastructure within
the project area would be protected or relocated during project implementation. No recycled water lines
exist within 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 specific
plan.
3d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. 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 within the TRC EIR and found to
be less than significant applying standard conditions and with mitigation incorporated. Solid waste
T_Reglonal~
InlUaJ Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
capacity in area landfills, particularly the Ei Sobrante Landfill, has been expanded to provide adequate
disposal capacity for cumulative demand. EI Sobr8nte has more than 20 years of capacitY available and
licensed at this time. Combined wtth 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.
3e. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The p~oposed project would require water
during general construction activities and during operation. Commercial development would require
water for general operations, fire flows (if required), restaurant and other food service uses and
landscaping in parking lots and other outside areas.
The impacts of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan on water demand were analyzed in the
EIR. 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 mttigation 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.
Recycled water may be made available as recycled water lines are extended to new areas near the
project site. If available, it can be utilized within the project boundaries.
31. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Drainage improvements connecting the
final phase of the specific plan to the master dralnage plan on-site and to the existing region-wide flood
controVstorm runoff drainage system would be constructed as part of the proposed project and as
analyzed in the ErR. Please refer to a detailed discussion of this Issue in Section 6, Water. The
proposed project would comply wtth all Riverside County Conservation and Flood Control District
regulations including provision for no net increase in incremental discharge volumes from the stte and
for water quality r~uirements. 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 with 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 significant project specific or cumulative significant adverse Impact is forecast for
the storm water drainage system If 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 implemenied. Based on the analysis presented above utility isslles related specifically to
the proposed project and incorporation of mitigation in the EIR, there wouid be no potentially significant
adverse impacts from project implementation All utilitY 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.
T emecuIa Regional Center
IniOal Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
tssues (and Supporting Information Souroes):
Potentially
"'_
""'oct
PotentIally
SignifIcant
Unless MilJ_
Less Ulan
Significant No
"- "-
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-l54 and throughout the certified Temecula Regional Center EIR.
<la. Impacts ReJYlain 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 riot provide housing or lead to a significant 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 within the
specific plan area closer to the tiuildout 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 site is within the current developed area In the City and surrounding community. It will
complete the construction of the specific plan previously approved and was included in the T emecuia
General Plan Update and General Plan EIR in addition to being analyzed in the TRC EIR. As such, the
proposed project is considered to be consistent with 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 population for retail commercial services as anticipated by the General Plan will
be partiaUyfuffilled by completing the final phase of the Temecula Regional Center. As it serves existing
and planned needs, the proposed project has no possibility of inducing substantial growth within the City
or project area in general.
4c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIFi. There are no residences within the
proposed project site 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 proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase 01
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
Inlllal SIudyAl83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL 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 Less than
51gn_ Significant 51_I No
Issues (and Supporting Infonnatlon Sources): .",..,. Unless Mitigated ""''''' ""'''''
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. farm 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-site? y
(2)
e) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting Y
altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts,
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 mitigation 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 mitigated 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 FEI8. 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 Initial Study is 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.
5a. Imqacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIFi. The CityofTemecula has identified the
minimum level of service (LOS) as 'D' 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
Temecu1a Regional Center
initial Study1U83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Renional Center
INmAL STUDY
will generate traffic. However, the traffic generated by the final phase!>f 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 significant cumulative
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. Imqacts 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.
5c. 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, albeft, 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 activilies are controlled
to a less than significant impact level.
Sd. Jmoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The existing specific plan and City of
Temecula zoning ordinance include requirements for adequate parking capacity. 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.
59. Impacts 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. Mitigation measures are included In
the EIR to encourage altemative modes of transportation, including public transportation, as they have
the potential to ease general traffic congestion in the area.
5!. Impacts 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 within 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
1_Study'1lI83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
Issues (end Supporting '. . Sources):
Potentially
Slgnlftcant
".....
Potentially
Sl_
Unless Mitigated
Less than
SIgnificant No
"- "-
6. WATER. Wouldtheproposalresultin:
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 oxvgen 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, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations? (1,2,14) .
g) Altered direction or rate of flow oi 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-3D, 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, cumuiative impacts to regional flood facilities were
considered potentially significant. Several mitigation measures were identified to address the project site
hydrology and water quality impacts, including measures to control future runoff and to install required
drainage system improvements for the project.
6a,d
&e. Imp-acts 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" 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 facilKies. The storm runoff will be discharged into the eXisting off-site
Tomocula Regional ee_
InlUaJ Sludy1ll83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
system of man-made channels at a comparable volume to the existing volume of runoff. The flows will
be deHvered 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 pattem and absorption rates within the area. No additional mitigation beyond those
measures already identified in the EIR is required.
6b. Imo.acts 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 facilities
on the site have reduced the flood plain impact to less than significant. Thus, the implementation of the
final phase of the Specific Plan will not result in an exposure of new facilities to .signlficant 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 sUe is not subject to significant flood hazards from seiche, or tsunami.
6c. Imllacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIFi. The proposed project encompasses
activities 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
Margarita River. Varying amounts of urban pollutants such particles and petroleum 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 cities have adopted stringent best management practices designed to control discharge
of pollution that could result in a significant 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). Specific appendices define best management practices (BMPs) that when implemented, can
ensure that neither significant erosion and sedimentation, nor other water quality 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-tllrm (Water Quality Management Plan, WQMP), no
additional mitigation is required to ensure this issue Is appropriately addressed. Compliance will be
ensured through fulfilling the requirements of the SWPPP and WQMP, which can be monitored by both
the City and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
6f-h. Imoacts 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 unU project (approximately
25!) 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 quality impacts would also be less than
significant because the proposed project will not deliver significantly contaminated water to the ground
T emecula Regional Cent8r
Initial Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
water aquifer through percolation. The impacts to rate and direction of flow of ground water would also
not experience a significant 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 ihe 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 significant adverse impacts from
project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, water issues reiated specifically to the
proposed project will not experience potentially significant 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 significant impact on
water quality issues. No new water mitigation measures are required for this roadway project. This finding is
consistent with the datac.ontained in the TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and SUppoItIng information Sources):
-,
..-
-.
Potentially
",gnll1cant
Unless MitIgated
Less "'an
_ No
- -
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including, but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
(1,2,14,15)
y
b) Locally designated species and/or natural
communities (e.g. heritage trees, oak forests,
etc.)? (1,2,14,15))
y
c) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pools)? (1, 2., 14, 15)
y
d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors,
(including, but not limited to Murrieta Creek,
Warm Springs Creek and Cole Creek)?
(1,2,14,15)
y
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-77 through V-ll3 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 Canter
InlUaJ Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL 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 site 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, Mitigation 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 result of
development of the site. 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 .Iocation. 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. Impacts Remain the Same as Cha@cterized in the TRC EIR. The vegetation on the site was
categorized as introduced, or non-native, grassland and the site used as foraging habitat for raptors.
However, the site Is currenUy completely disturbed and/or developed with a major shopping center and
other urban uses and paved for parking. No biological resources remain on-site with 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The EIR found no species of concem
occurring within the proposed project or oaks or other plant species of concem within the project site.
The Stephens Kangaroo Rat was found nearby, but not on the project site. Raptors used the site for
foraging, but the loss of foraging habitat 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. Imp..acts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TAC EIR. No riparian habitat, vemal pools,
wetlands, or jurisdictional waters were found on site. The site was used for dryland farming and was
highly disturbed at the time of the EIR analysis. Since the site is fully developed with urban uses, no
potential exists to adversely impact any wetlands.
7d. ImQactsRemain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 'The project site 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 habitat 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
mitigation 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
. .
Temeaia Regional Center
InlUaJ Study1ll83106
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 Infonnatlon Sources):
_"
"''''1IIc8nt
-
Potentially
"'_
Unless Mitigated
Less"",
Significant No
- -
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (1,2, 14)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner? (1, 2,14 )
y
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-85 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 EIA. 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
Generilf 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 reSOLlrce issues are forecast to experience less than
significant Impacts If the final phase of Specific Plan construction is approved and implemented. No energy or
"
T emecuIa A9gionat Center
InlUaJ Sludy_,06
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
mineral resource mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the
TRC Rnal EIR.
Issues (and SUpporting Information Sources):
_"
51_
-
Potentially
Sl_
Unless MtIgated
Less than
S1gn1f1cam No
- ,."...
9. CUL rURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? y
(1,2,14)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? y
(1,2,14)
c) Affect historical resources? (1, 2, 14) y
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change y
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (1,2,14)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within y
the potentialimpact area? (1,2, 14)
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to cultural resource issues from development of the project as part of
Implementation of the Specific Plan are for9C8St 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 identified to address the project site
cultural resource Impacts. Archaoological 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 n9C8Ssary to implement the
Specific Plan project. In order to reduce this impact to less than significant, mitigation measures
(including monitoring) were included in the EIR to be implemented during ground disturbance. The site
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 mitigation 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 shalf be halted or diverted in the immediate area and a qualified
archaeologist shalf 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.
Tomocula Reglol1aI Center
Initial Study.\l83,06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
- -.',
City of T emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
9c. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. No significant historical resources were
found on site prior to development. The site had been used as a farm and some remnants of structures
were found on site but were not considered significant resources. No significant adverse historical
impacts are forecast to result from implementing the proposed project within 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. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project site 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 cultural values. .
ge. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EJR. No significant ethnic, religious, or sacred
resources are known to exist on site. The site is used primarily as a shopping mall with other accessory
retail, restaurant and office uses. No adverse impact can occur from implementing the proposed
project.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the I!xtension 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 cultural
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 cultural resource issues are forecast to experience less than signifICant
impacts If the project is approved and implemented. No new cultural resource mitigation measures are
required for this project. This finding Is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
-(...._no ....""""*),
"-ally
Sl..."....
-
"-ally
...........,
Unless Mtlgatfd
Less than
.....".... No
_ ....act
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 opportunities?
(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 EIR (FEIR). Please refer to the discussion regarding parks and recreation in Section 2 of this document.
The analysis of thl! Specific Plan, including the final phase, concluded that no significant adverse impacts to
recreational resources would result from the proposed projectimplementation. .
10a. Imoacts Remain the Bame 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 thlll1what was
TemecuIa Regional Center
1_ Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
r
~ ~,,-
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAl. STUDY
forecast at the time of Specific Plan EIR certification and approval. No demand for ~ecreation 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 opportunities are forecast to occur if the proposed project is implemented.
Conclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agrElement 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 information Souroes):
-,
",gnlI!cant
-
-"
"'_
Unless MItIgated
Less than
SlgnIIicant No
""'... -
.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 identilied 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 sigJ:lificant 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 setting is not considered a significant scenic resource.
Adverse aesthetic impacts to scenic resources from development of the site would be less thim
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 ~e City public works standards and any roadway improvements would be improved
to General Plan and Specific Plan specifications.
T8nl9ClJIa Regional Center
Inti" 8_'06
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
--
~"' ...~_..
City ofT emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
11 b.. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would extarid 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. ImQacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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, llesthetic 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
for9C8St 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 EIR.
Temecula RegIonal Center
InIUaI Study1083106
TOM DODSON & AssOCIATES
_..~.-
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center INmAL STUDY
_oily Potentially Less "an
Significant Significant Significant No
Issues (and SUppol1ll1g InfonnBtlcn Sources): - UnIeasMltlgated - ,."...
12. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal resuff in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (1, 2, 14) y
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? (1, y
2,14)
c) Seismicity: special study zone? (1, 2, 14) y
d) Landslides or mudslides? (1, 2,14) y
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable Y
soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill?(l, 2, 14)
f) Subsidence of the land? (1, 2, 14) y
g) Expansive soils? (1,2,14) y
h) Unique geologic or physical features? (1, 2, y
14)
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to geology and soil issues from development of the project as part of
implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-12 through V-24 of the certified TRC Final EIR
(FEIR). The analysis of the Specific 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 identified to address the project site geology and soil resource impacts. A
geotechnical report of the site was pr~pared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified E1R for the
Specific Plan. This study is provided' as part of the EIR, Volume 1/1.
. The proposed project is located in a seismically active area as is all of southem Califomia. The Elsinore fault
and Murrieta Hot Springs fault are located within one mile of the project site. However, no active fault traces
or faults have been found within the project site. It is estimated that an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 on the
Richter scale could occur on the nearby Elsinore fault segment. Significant 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. ImQacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The site is not located within a State of
California Fault-Hazard Zone for active faulting and no active fault traces or faults have been found on
the project sileo Ground rupture normally occurs along pre-existlng faults. As there are no active
faults on the project site, the ground rupture potential is projected to be iow to non-exlstent.
r
T erneclAa Regional Center
1_ Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
The City requires construction to meet its 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 City and the published geotechnical
requirements would ensure that the potential impacts associated with fault rupture would be less than
significant. Further, mitigation measures included in the EIR ensure that the final phase of Specific
Plan will be constructed to meet City design standards.
12b. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The site 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 City 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.
SRes with loose to medium dense soils in areas where ground water is within 40 feet of the surface
are susceptible to liquefaction with 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 impact.in this issue area would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation incorporated from the EIR and would be no greater than previously
analyzed.
12c. Imqacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The nearest known special study zone
and active fault is the Elsinore fault 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 faults near the site. However, as the site 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 EIR. The landslide risk-within the area is low
due to the existing topography and the general competence of the underlying geology. Additionally,
the site 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 mudslides is considered less than significant.
12e. Imrnjcts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The issue of erosion and sedimentation
are discussed under issue 6c of this document. City grading standards, best management practices
and the SWPPP and WQMP are required by mitigation to cPntrol 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 onsRe soils is a
potential impact during excavation, grading, fill and compacting ut'ou,;;Dns. 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 addition, 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 Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Since this is amandatory requirement, no additional mitigation is
required to control potential water quality impacts to a less than significant impact level.
121. Impacts 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
TemecuJa Regional Center
Ir/tiaI Study1ll83106
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 TRQ 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 soli 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 site 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 mitigation measures in the EIR. geology and soli 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 significant 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 Specific Plan are approved and implemented. No new geology and soli mitigation measures are
required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
.......(and_InfonnaIlon.......)'
PotentIally
-
-
PoIentla11y
Sl_
Unless f.Cl.tlgated
Less than
Sl_ No
- -
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 health hazard or potential
health 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 generaliythroughout the certified TRC Final EIR
(FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase of development, implies that no significant
adverse impacts to hazard issues would result from the proposed project. Several mitigation measures were
TemecW. Regional Center
InlUaJ Sludy1ll83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
identified 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. Impacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIR. During construction there is a
potential for accidental release of petroleum products in sufllcient 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 products during construction activities will be remedlated 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 significant 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. .
13c. Impacts 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 in;lpacts of this issue to
less than significant. As a result, handling and managing hazardous substances and equipment would
result in be less than significant 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 significant with the mitigation in the EIR incorporated.
13e. Irripacts 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 identified 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 Cenle!
1_ Study1083106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, hazard issues related
specifically 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 Soun:e&):
-y
Sl_
-
PotentIally
Sl._
Unless Mitigated
Less than
Sl_ No
,."... "'-
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
Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-31 through V- 46 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of
the Specific 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. Mitigation 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.
148. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Con!ltruction 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 typicaJIy 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 limiting the hours of construction activity, and requiring a construction-
related noise mitigation plan for projects adjacent to sensitive receptors. The EIR also .identifies a
mitigation 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 within 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, i. .~~... ~lation of these
mitigation 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 aM cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The Specific Plan would
contribute no significant stationary noise effects to off-site 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 majotnorth-south transportation corridor. The Specific
Plan itself 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 Specific Plan analyzed in the TRC EIR.
T emect.la RegIonal Center
Initial Sludy1ll83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
r
,
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
14b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. None of the activities associated w~h
the ,..w,.w"ad project, either during constniction 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 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 noise standard conditions and mitigation measures in the EIR, noise issues are not forecast to
experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. There will be a significant 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 mitigation is required for this project. This
finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
"""'" IBnd _nalnfonn8li<ln .......),
-IV
Sl_
-
-ally
Sl_
Unleos ..._
Lesslhan
S1gnfficant No
- -
15. AIR QUALITY. Would the propOsal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(1,2,14)
y
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(1,2,14)
y
c) After air movement, moisture. or temperature.
or cause any change in climate?
(1,2,14)
y
d) Create objectionable odors?
(1,2,14)
y
Substantiation:
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.
Temecl.ia Regional Center
,..... Study1083106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
15a
&b. Impacts 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 result in localized and basin-wide cumulative exceedances of air quality standards. All
emissions were determined to be at or above thresholds during construction and Vt''''' ..;;Dn even with
mttigation. 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 alter the fact that emissions from the Specific Plan are considered
significant because they exceed thresholds, but the fulfillment of the Specific Plan, from ajobslhousing
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 construct/on equipment and new asphalt 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 result from implementing the proposed project.
Ccincluslon
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, alr quality issues are for9C8St 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 significant impacts If the
project Is approved and implemented. The impacts will remain relatively the same as were analyzed in the
Elf!. No new mitigation is required for this project. This finding is cOnsistent with the data contained in the
TRC Final EIR.
T emeaiIa Reglonal Center
1_ Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
lssues(and_""Infoonallon""""')'
PotentIally
Sl_
-
Potentially
Slgnificant
Unless MItIgated
Less than
Significant No
- -
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?
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
y
y
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either 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 addnional three years to provide for the future
development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the approved T emecula
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 significant
effects that are significantly greater than those analyzed in the EIR and that would not be reduced to less than
significant level with mitigation incorporated from the Specific Plan EIR. In addition, 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 wnh the proposed project have been identified
in the areas of biological and cultural resources for the Specific Plan in the Specific Plan EIR. 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 mitigation 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
/nltlaIStudyill83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
__e_~~~'. .
City of T emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
issue areas is required 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 site and biology mitigation measures have been fulfilled and are no longer applicable.
Generally, the potential effects on cultural resources have also already occurred and mitigation
implemented. However, some impacts may occur and mitigation for cultural resources in the TRC EIR
wijl be implemented to ensure that they remain the same as those evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR.
16b
&c. Potentially significant long-term and cumulative impacts of the proposed project as part of the Specific
Plan were analyzed in the ErR and were associated with the following areas: transportation/circulation,
air quality, seismic safety, agricultural lands, noise, circulation, wildlifelvegetation, flood/drainage, public
facilities, and utilities. 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 EIR.
16d. The project complies with 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-significance. No further analysis of these human impact 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 EIR.
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 EIR. 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 EIR. This finding is
based on implementation of mitigation measures Identified in the original EIR and City imposition of and
enforcement of mandatory or sl<lndard conditions of approval when the final phase of the Specific Plan is
implemented. The analysis indicates that no new significant effects will be caused by Including this
modification to the overall project analyzed in the EIR. The impacts will remain relatively the same as
analyzed in the EIR.
Because no new mitigation measures have been identified and required for the proposed project to ensure no
significant impacts will result from itS implementation, the City can issue an Addendum to the certified TRC
EIR as the appropriate CEaA environmental determination. Neither a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR nor a
Negative Declaration is required to comply with CEaA 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 01 the Specific Plan as described in this document.
~
T emec:uta Regional Center
Initial S1udy1ll83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula 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 irs continued
viability" (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 within a completely disturbed site. The site is a developed shopping center and
the project would be developed with.in 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 (Specific 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 with the
Specific Plan analyzed In the TRC EIR.
Temecula Regional eente<
1_ Sludy1ll831 06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula .
T emacula Regional Center
FIGURES
T8fTlElC;UIa Regional Center
llitial S1udy1083106
-~, -
INmAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
Data use SLtlject to &cense.
(l!)2004 DeLoon..XMap!l4.5.
www.deICmle.com
1
IAN (12.7" E)
~mf
o 2 4 6 8 10
Data Zoom 9-0
TemecUa Regional Center
1_ Study1ll83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATes
-. .~-
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
Data use subject to license.
02004 OeLorme. XMapl!!l4.5.
WWN.delorme.com
1
MN (12.7' E)
T emecu!a RegIonal Center
I_Study_,06
INITIAL STUDY
~ft
o aD 1600 2.tOO 3D) .aD
Data Zoom 13-0
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
. -'. "~- ..~.,~-
ATTACHMENT NO.5
EIR ADDENDUM
G:\Planningl2OO6\PA06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
13
I
ADDENDUM TO JIlli 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 Cal. 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 aIso 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 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.
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 ut't"V led 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 ~oted 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 30, 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 detennines, on the basis
of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(I) 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 30, 2006
2
J
(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of
a subsequent ElR, and
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous ElR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation."
CEQA Findings
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
ElR. 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 ElR.
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 ElR.
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 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.
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 ElR need not be
prepared, and that the City may rely on this Addendum to approve the proposed extension to the
Development Agreement.
91544 I..1 August 30, 2006
3
..._~
. -..... '-', .-
ATTACHMENT NO.6
CONFORMED COPY OF NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR EIR ADDENDUM
G:\P/annlng\2OO6\PA06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUPIP/annIng\PC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
14
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA
COWIty Agency of Filing: Riverside
t-:-,~--:; :
,"' :' ~~ II
--_._-~--- ~- ~~_._-
i : j;', ~':i
". OCT 2 7 1006
~i~i!!J
Receipt #
200601088
Date: 09/1312006
Document No:
200601088
Project Tille: TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM NO.3
;'.:.
Projecl_~ppUcantNome: CITY OF TEMECULA
Project Applicant Address: 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA CA 92590
Project Applicant: Local Public Agency
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
fZI Environmental Impact Report
o Negative Declaration
o Appltcolion Fee Water Diversion (State Waler Ruources Control Board Only)
o Project Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs
fZI COWIty Adminlslratlon Fee
D Project that is exemplfromfees (DeMinimis Exemption)
o Project that is exemptfromfees (Notice of Exemption)
Total Received
Signature and tide a/person receiving paymenl:
~",
Notes:
Phone Number:
$850.00
$64.00
$914.00
14~~
,.
.-.........
City of Temecula
Planning Department
TO:
Notice of Determination
County Clerk and Recorders Office
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 .
FROM:
Planning Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Filing ofa Notice of Determ1nation in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the
Public Resources Code.
State Clearinghouse No.:
Project Title:
Project Location:
[FRIVRRs,olhou! L D)
~tp 13 2006
LARRYW. WARD, CLERK
By .J~..M T. MarshaU
7. Deputy
Project Description:
Lead Agency:
Contact Person:
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan EIR Addendum NO.3
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
TemecuJa 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 Berpl>>dlno'
Meridian on the USGS Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series T.oj:l1)graphic
Map (see Figures 1 and 2)
A proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the
Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an additionaf 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
City of Temecula
Cheryl KitzerowlMatt Peters
Telephone Number: (951) 694-6400
This is to advise you that the City Council for the City of Temecula has approved the above described project on
September 12, 2006 and has made the following determinations regarding this project:
1. The project ([ J will IX] will not> have a significant effect on the environment.
2. That ([XI An Environmental Impact Report [ I A Negative Declaration) was prepared for this project pursuant
to the provisions of CECA.
3. Mitigation measures ([X] were [ I were not) made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Consideration ([Xl was [ I was not) adopted for this project.
5. Findings ([Xl were [ I were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CECA.
This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments, responses, and record of project approval is available
to the General Public at the City ofTemecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590.
Signature:
7>~~-~~Y/~
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
Date:
~e~~?~~nalion
POSTED
.)cr 1 J lUUb
Removed. /0. ( &, , ~
By: ~, ~DeP~
County of Riverside, state of California
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:
R:IFORMSICEQADEM 9/13/06 k1b
--.",.-,-,.,,-
ATTACHMENT NO.7
LETTER FROM ALHADEFF AND SOLAR REPRESENTING BEL VILLAGGIO
G:\PIannIng\2OO6\PA06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion DP CUP\PIanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
15
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
AUMlTEO UABUrv PARTNERSHIP
41607 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITe 103
TEMECUI.A, CALIFORNIA 92591-2984
MAIN TeLEPHONE; (951) 719-3640
FAc",MILE; (951) 719.3650
Offices in San Diego and TBmBcula. CBUfomlB
February 12, 2007
SAMUa C. AlHADEFF
SAlHADEff@A-SlAW.COM
Mr. Robert Johnson
Community Development Director
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Expansion of Promenade Mall
Draft of Points to be Included within conditions for the
Main Street expansion of the Promenade Mall submitted
by United Development (Bel Villaggio)
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for visiting .with us and the representatives of Forest City
today. This Is the letter that I said we would deliver to you. I would ask
that you include the letter in the administrative record of the City's
proceedings In connection with Forest City's proposed expansion of the
Promenade Mall (the "Mall").
As we discussed today, the Bel Villaggio commercial development has
two owners. WGA Bel Villagglo, L.P. owns Phases I and II; WGA Bel
Villagglo III, L.P. owns Phase III. This letter Is written on behalf of both
entities ("Bel Villagglo").
Bel Vlllagglo has been consistent with regard to the principles and
.conditions for Its agreement to support the expansIon ofthe. Mall. In brief,
those principles and conditions Include incorporation into the Mall's Main
_ Street concept, enhanced pedestrian access among the Mall, the MaIn
Street, and Bel Villagglo's project, enhanced slgnage, and Improved.
circulation into the Bel Villaggio project, Including controlled left-turn access
from Margarita Road.
Specifically, we have requested and continue to request the following
occur with regard to the expansion of the Mall:
S;1DaJa FIOII1 MlcbdlclClicnts\Unitcd i>evcIopmcnl Oroup\Jobnson Icllcr 02.12.07.1JOC
~ ..,~>-,.---'^
---,.. --
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Mr. Robert Johnson
February 12, 2007
Page 2
1. Incorporation of Bel Villaggio's project into the Main Street
element of the Mall. That incorporation includes points of access
between the Main Street element of the Mall and the Bel
Villaggio project, the availability of the proposed parking
structures for use by Bel Villaggio's tenants, and another point of
access.
2. Enhanced pedestrian access, and assurances by the City of the
same, In the form of integrated and easy access between the
Main Street element on one side of the Ring Road and the
continuation of the Main Street element into the Bel Villagglo
project. All parties need to acknowledge this access may require
pedestrian bridges. We believe the bridges may be funded
through an RDA bond issuance. We also believe enhanced
pedestrian access in the Main Street element is possible and
appropriate at three locations:
a. At the corner of Promenade Way and the Ring R9ad.
b. At the terminus of the newly proposed Main Street.
c. At the Ring Road entry to the parking lot opposite the
northern Ring Road access to Bel Vlllaggio.
,
3. From 'the Information that we received from Forest City today,
we understand that Forest City is willing to do the following:
a. Create a four-way Intersection on the eastern side of one of
the proposed parking structures that Is aligned with Bel
Vliaggio's northern access point from the Ring Road.
b. Reconflgure at its expense Bel VlIIaggio's southern access
point on the Ring Road so that it directly aligns with. the Main
Street element's access point with the Ring Road.
As we noted in today's meeting, the reconfiguration of Bel
Villagglo's southeJ;ll access point presents several pOSSible
challenges requiring careful analysis. They Include:
. Satisfying any concerns that eel Villagglo's lenders might
, have with respect to the reconflguratlon, Including, without
limitation, possible impainnent of their security.
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Mr. Robert Johnson
February 12, 2007
Page 3
. Satisfying any concerns that Bel Villagglo's tenants might
have under their existing leases, Including, without
limitation, the possible loss of existing parking spaces.
. Providing adequate and safe access for service trucks.
4. A slgnage program that benefits the Mall and Bel Villaggio's
tenants.
5. Parking structures that are enhanced and attractive and not a
"barrier" to Bel Villagglo's tenants.
6. A consideration of a controlled left-turn into the Bel Vlllagglo
project from Margarita Road.
7. A construction schedule that recognizes and protects Bel
Villagglo's tenants during the construction of the parking
structures as well as the construction of the Main Street retail
project. That recognition needs to Include an.agreeable schedule
for truck and vehicle access related to the construction as well as
protection of the tenants from Inconvenience of parking, noise,
dust, fumes and tile like. That protection will need to include
reimbursement for any out of pocket expenses or costs of Bel
V1l1agglo's tenants. .
8. The ability to use the publ.lc parking structures, and
consideration of parking availability to allow for an increase of
square footage In Bel Vlllagglo's portion of the Mall project. At
this point, we have Insufficient Information as to the finandng of
the parking structures, what percentage the City Is paying, and
what percentage the Maills paying. Bel Villagglo wants the
opportunity to participate in any supplement or subsequent bond
, Issuance to provide for parking for Bel Villagglo which would
allow Bel V1l1aggio to Increase Its square footage by .
approximately 16,000 to 20,000 square feet. We need to
.explore and agree by March 6th, the City Council meeting date,
on a mechanism to assure reciprocal parking and/or adequate
parking provisions for planned expansion by Bel Vlllagglo.
9. . The process and procedure which will allow Bel Villagglo to
reconfigure and Improve Its project concurrently with the
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Mr. Robert Johnson
February 12, 2007
Page 4
processing of the Main Street element of the Mall so that Bel
villagglo may pull building permits in coordination with the Mall
pulling Its building permits.
10. A three-party memorandum of agreement ("MOUrI) with the City,
Forest City, and Bel Villaggio that incorporates the points that we
have discussed and continue to discuss and that are contained
herein. The MOU shall be adopted at the same time the City
Council approves the Mall Expansion.
11. The opportunity as has been discussed to Insert language into
the conditions of approval of the Mall's expansion which will
benefit not only the Mall, but also the Bel Villaggio project. All
conditions need to be agreeable to the City and Bel Villagglo.
12. . We have discussed with the City mechanisms to be Implemented
through Conditions of Approval for providing future solutions for
enhancing the aesthetic, functional, safety, and traffic-carrying
capacities of the Ring Road. It Is our understanding that these
studies will apply to all parts of the Ring Road, Including, without
limitation, commercial projects located inside and outside of the
Ring Road. Bel Villagglo desli'es to participate actively in that
process. We request that the City and Forest City must
guarantee timely input and participation by Bel Villagglo. Also
there can be no Increased costs to Bel Villaggio for Ring Road
Improvements, i.e., no Increased assessments.
.
Thank you for a copy of the draft conditions. From our meeting today,
however, we understand that the draft conditions you sent us are no longer
operative and that the City will be preparing a newly revised set of
conditions. We will appreciate receiving the revised of conditions as soon as
they are completed so that we may review and comment on them.
At today's meeting, Debbie Ubnoske mentioned that when the City
approved the amendment to the Mall's development agreement, it also
approved a CEQA addendum and a project site plan. The approved site plan
Is attached. Based on our meeting today, it appears that the approved site
plan Is different than the project Forest City Is proposing. For example, the
approved site plan does not show an entrance Into the Mall or an
intersection aligned with Bel Villagglo's northern access point on the Ring
Road. Also, the approved site plan shows one of the parking structures
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Mr. Robert Johnson
February 12, 2007
Page 5
being located adjacent to the Ring Road's Intersection with General Kearny
Road and not with Bel Villaggio's northern access point. In light of the
discussions the City, Forrest City, and Bel Villaggio have been having, these
differences appear to be material and potentially problematic.
Again, Bel Villaggio has always been consistent with regard to its
conditions concerning thE! expansion of the Promenade Mall and the Main
Street element. We believe by working together the expansion could
represent a great opportunity. However, as presently proposed, the Mall's
expansion has a number of challenges to be resolved.
We look forward to the enumerated provisions set forth above being
Included within the final Conditions of Approval for the Mall's expansion.
Sincerely,
)c.. ~
Samuel C. Alhadeff of
Alhadeff and Solar, LLP
SCA:mrg
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Willy Ayyad (w/encl,)
Ms. Carol Saulnier (w/encl.)
Mr. Barry Burnell (w/encl.)
~~._,.-
ATTACHMENT NO.8
LETtER FROM RESIDENT DOROTHY HYMAN
G:\P1annlng\2OO6\PAli6-0293 Promenade Mall Eicpansion DP CUPlPlanningIPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc
. 16
- - -"--"--' --, ~ ~-
- ,~-. '.,
.~
8v..~_.,"" "_'"
"." -
~-?o-o7
\' -{s ~ ~ .J)Jk ~Jf!Rw
.~ .~~ tiS- ()~- .~.L?n~~ . e'. !tr-z-
}01o{wg~ uJ./~J1Jf-o#~l( a1.?~.J2..l2" lf~ fJo 1)...
WtU -tM%~ 4'L-fhz,Pffef? ~.~ ~
~.AfW-~~diJlNr~#.;, ~~ Ip~J -
. ~ cJ~~~..A9,~u.0-_J;~ .
J-j-jo. 0< ~ iF'M?Y\..5~~1D~.ur aJ-
:tM)O;;}JVA$1 e~tf' 'f1w #4nn~ .
f~'lcA4,vc7\. 9
r . J{kot<ft~J
.,