HomeMy WebLinkAbout090507 PC Agenda
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the
project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or
in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an
appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days
after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning
Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
New Items
2 Plannina Aoolication No. PA07-0154. a Site Plan Modification Aoolication. submitted by
Forest City Commercial Develooment. to chanae buildina footprints. drive aisles. parkina
orientation. and landscapina of the approved Temecula Promenade Mall Expansion Plans.
located at the Promenade Mall. between Macy's and Edwards Cinema within the Temecula
Reaional Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263) in the City of Temecula bound by Winchester
Road to the north. Maraarita Road to the east. Overland Drive to the south and Ynez Road
to the west. Chervl Kitzerow and Matt Peters. Associate Planners.
3 Plannina Application No. PA07-0157. a Resolution of the Plannina Commission
recommendina that the City Council approve an amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula
Municipal Code. addina Chapter 9.2 and establishina Citywide standards for reaulatina
noise. Emerv Papp. Senior Planner.
4 Plannina Application Nos. PA07-0220. a Development Aareement: PA07-0048. a General
Plan Amendment:. PA06-0370. a Tentative Tract Map (TIM 35181). PA06-0369 a
Development Plan: and PA07-0090 a Minor Exception. submitted by Temecula Properties.
LLC. for a 608.934 sauare foot industrial distribution buildina on 32 acres. and for the future
development of the remainina 52 acres to include industrial. commercial. retail.hiah-densitv
residential. and/or public institutional facilitv land uses. located at the northwest comer of
Dendv Parkway and Winchester Road. Dana Schuma. Associate Planner.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Wednesday, September 19,2007; 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Driye, Temecula, California. .
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendasIZOO7\09-05-07.doC
2
ITEM #1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
pLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 15, 2007
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, August 15, 2007, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners: Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1 Commission Noise Subcommittee Status Report
Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the following issues were discussed by a subcommittee
consisting of the public, staff, Council Member Edwards, Mayor Washington, Commissioner
Guerriero, and Chairman Chiniaeff: .
. MisdemeanorLaws
. Lot Sizes
. Barking Dogs
. Complaints by the public
. Normal Nuisance Law
. Decibel Levels
The above-mentioned will be drafted into a report and forwarded to the subcommittee for review
to be followed by the Planning Commission public hearing for consideration.
R:\MinulesPC\081507
2 Discussion of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Increase Criteria
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Fisk provided a report, highlighting on the
following:
. Description
. Purpose of FAR Standards
. FAR Research
. Approved FAR Increases
o Ahmed Medical Building
o Fairfield Marriott
o Hampton Inn
o Hanks Hardware
. Alternative #1 - Do not change the criteria identified in the Development Code
. Alternative #2 - Eliminate FAR standards from the General plan and Development Code
. Alternative #3 - Expand the criteria for allowing an FAR increases beyond General Plan
and Development Code targets.
The Planning Commission concurred with staffs recommendation to direct staff to prepare an
Ordinance amendment based on Alternative #3.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3 Plannina Application No. PA06-0340. a General Plan Amendment to revise the Land Use
Map for approximatelv 150 Citywide parcels with "split" land use desianations and to revise
the text of the Community Design Element reaarding the Chaparral Area
. By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Papp highlighted on the following:
. Project Description
. Location
. Land Use Map Issues
. General Plan Land Use Map
o Butterfield/Pauba
o Butterfield Ranch/Redhawk
o Chaparral Hiah School
o CrowneHiII
o Enfield/Riverton
o Great Oak Hiah School ~Chairrnan Chiniaeff recused himself.
o Meadowview .
o Old Town
o Promenade
o RedhawklPechanaa--Chairrnan Chiniaeff recused himself.
o Vintaae Hills Elementarv
o Wolf Creek North---Chairrnan Chiniaeff recused himself.
o Wolf Creek South---Chairrnan Chiniaeff recused himself.
o Communitv Desian Element
f ---
R:\MinutesPC\081507
2
Assistant City Manager Johnson noted that for Old Town: first parcel, east of Mercedes Street
and north offuture Civic Center, this should be Public Institutional (PI), not residential.
For the Planning Commission, Senior Planner Papp advised that the required proper public
notices were implemented.
At this time the public hearing was opened and due to no speakers, it was closed.
The Planning Commission thanked Senior Planner Papp for his presentation.
MOTION: Commissioner Carey moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner
Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected aDDroval with the exception of
Chairman Chiniaeff abstaining from Great Oak Hiah School; RedhawklPechanaa; Wolf Creek
North; and Wolf Creek South.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0340 TO
AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP BY
IDENTIFYING THE USES ESTABLISHED IN THE BUILT
ENVIRONMENT, TO IDENTIFY WATER COURSES AS OPEN
SPACE AREAS, MINIMIZE "SPLIT" LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS BY CORRECTING MAPPING ERRORS, AND
REVISE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USES BASED ON RECORDED
MAP DATA, AND; TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN
ELEMENT CHAPARRAL AREA TO REMOVE CERTAIN
GRADING CONSTRAINTS WHICH ARE MITIGATED UNDER
THE WESTERN. RIVERSIDE COUNTY MUL TI-SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
A. Referencing the demolition of the 5 and Diner on Ynez Road in progress, Commissioner
Carey expressed concem with the safety issues that are exposed to the public.
B.Commissioner Telesio commended Commissioner Harter for his article in the Temecula
ValleyChj1mber of Commerce referencing exterior painting requirements and signs for multi-
tenant developments.
. C. Commissioner Guerriero thanked Director. of Planning Ubnoske for her efforts with
regard to Ad Works mobile sign vehicle. .
D. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that he will not be in attendance of the August 29 and
September 5,2007, Planning Commission meetings. .
R:\MinutesPC\081507
3
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Referencing Commissioners attending subcommittee meetings and fees, Assistant City
Manager Johnson relayed that he will explore the issue.
Assistant City Manager Johnson advised that in the near future he will be requesting a
Commissioner to partake in a subcommittee regarding new signage for the Temecula Auto
Dealers. .
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:00 pm, Chairman Chiniaeff fonnally adjourned to Auaust 29. 2007 at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis Chiniaeff
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MinutesPCI081507
4
ITEM #2
)
DATE OF MEETING:
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 5, 2007
Matt Peters/Cheryl Kitzerow
TITLE: Associate Planners
Planning Application No. PA07-0154, a site plan Modification to
change building footprints, drive aisle configuration, parking
layout for valet service, and landscaping of the approved
Temecula Promenade Mall Expansion (Planning Application
No. PA06-0293)
Building A
Building B
Building C
Building D
Building E
Building F
Building G
Building I
Retail, 22,966 SF revised to 23,223 SF
Retail,19,535 SF revised to 19,611 SF
Retail, 29,506 SF revised to 29,624 SF
Retail, 21,155 SF revised to 21,125 SF
Restaurant, 6,300 SF
Restaurant, 8,551 SF
Retail, 950 SF
Restaurant, 16,500 SF
West Parking Structure
East Parking Structure
RECOMMENDATION:. l8J Approve with Conditions
o Deny
CEQA:
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
2 levels, 90,800 SF, 241 spaces
revised to 234 spaces
4 levels, 332,500 SF, 934 spaces
revised to 932 spaces
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
o Recommend.Denial
. 0 Categorically Exempt
(Section) .
(Class)
(Section) 15162
l8J Notice of Determination
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
.DEIR
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade Man valet access minor mod\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash issues
exp.doc .
1
. '\
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: Kenneth Lee, Forest City Commercial Development
Date of Completion: May 16. 2007
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: September 5, 2007
General Plan Designation: Community Commercial
Zoning Designation: Specific Plan #7, Temecula Regional Center
Retail Commercial Core CPA 2)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Existing Promenade Mall - Parking Lot
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Commercial Uses
Existing Commercial and Office Uses
Existing Commercial and Residential Uses
Existing Commercial Uses
Lot Area:
Parcels within Mall Loop Road - 78.06 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
Existing
Proposed
Permitted
.36
.40
.25 -1.0
Lot Coverage:
Buildings Only
Existing 20%
Proposed 23%
Max.. Permitted 32%
Buildings and Structures
Existing 20%
Proposed 27%
Max. Permitted 50%
Landscape Area/Coverage:
Existing
Proposed
Minimum Required
18%(3% hardscape/15% softscape)
20%(5% hardscape/15% softscape)
15% ..
Parking Required/Provided (for
entire Mall project bound by Loop
Road):
Existing
Proposed
5,471 spaces .
5,431 spaces (40 spaces eliminated
with reconfiguration)
5,292 spaces (139 spaces extra)
Required .
. G:IPlannlngl2007\PA07 -0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash Issues
exp.doc. .
2
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
On October 11, 1994 the City Council approved the T emecula 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
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 (Planning 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 I ("Temecula Commons") and Power Center. lito 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 concemsover 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. The Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. .
PA06-0293 on February 21, 2007.
On May 16, 2007, Forest City Development submitted a Modification Application to change a
building footprint, drive aisle, parking orientation, and landscaping of the approved Temecula
Promenade Mall Expansion Plans. On June 20, 2007, th'e modification was presented to the
Planning Commission. The Commission expressed concems regarding the timing of proposed
improvements to the Mall Ring Road. and requested this item be continued pending an
explanation and finalization on the Ring Road improvement plan. On July 24, 2007, the City
. Council approved the Ring Road improvement agreement.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concems have been addressed, with the
exception of the location and servicing of the proposed trash compactors. The applicant is
exploring alternative locations for the compactors and a Condition of Approval has been
included requiring the trash cop1pactors to be relocated subject to the approval of the City,
CR&R, and the applicant. The applicant, concurs with the recommended Conditions of
Approval.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan Modification
The proposed site plan changes will. accommodate the applicant's desire to provide valet
parking near Main. Street, Macy's request for an additional entry at the west garage, arid
modifications in buildingfootprints/square footage. resulting from lease negotiations for
prospective tenants. .
G:IPlanningl2007\PA07-ll154 Promenade Mall valet access minor rnodIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash issues
exp.doc
3
Building Footprint/Square Footage Allocation
As a result of lease negotiations, the applicant is requesting to reallocate square
footage/change building footprints as requested by future tenants. Changes in building
footprints are proposed for Buildings C and I (restaurants). No change in building square
footage is associated with the footprint change for Building I. The foot print change for Building
I is requested in order to improve the intersection (lack of visibility/vision triangle) to the south
of the Edwards Cinemas where the drive aisle behind the cinemas meets the drive aisle
extension of North General Kearney. The drive aisle behind the cinemas was "swung out" in
order for the intersection to meet halfway between the loop road and Building I. In addition,
the drive aisle extension of General Kearney North was slightly re-aligned to avoid the
extension of Building L Both drive aisle changes required slight modifications to parking
landscape fingers and the loss of 30 parking spaces. The change to the footprint of Building C
is to allow for an outdoor patio area for a perspective tenant.
Minor changes in building square footage/reallocation occur for Buildings A thru D. Staff has
confinned that the changes are only reallocation of square footage so that the overall
expansion area does not exceed 125,950 square feet of retail and restaurant space as allowed
by Planning Application No. PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion.
Valet Parking/Theatre Drop-Off
The parking field in front of the Red Robin Restaurant just south of Sears was reconfigured to
allow for valet parking at the entrance to Main Street. Part of the parking field will create a
situation for vehicles to be double-parked due to the need for a landscape island and traffic
control along Main Street. The Planning Department has added a Condition of Approval that
will require the valet parking to be cordoned off from the public during non-business hours to
prevent the public from being double parked in the eight spaces that front along the entrance
to Main Street. In response to comments from the Planning Commission and Staff, the
applicant is proposing two drop-off areas. One is proposed just south of Building I and the
Theater, and the other is proposed along Main Street adjacent to Building B. In addition, the
applicant proposes to designate a "Theater Customer Seating Area" for drop-off and pick-up to
be located outside the northwest corner of the Theater.
West Garage Access
.. At the request of Macy's, an additional access at the north side of the west garage has bel;ln
proVided. As a result, the trash bins that were located between the west garage and Building
C have been relocated. Two trash compactors are now proposl;ld at thl;l southeast cornl;lr of
the West garage. One compactor would be located within the parking structure and the
second compactor would be located between the parking structure and Building E. A concrete
apron spanning the Ring Road would be required to accommodate the loading and. unloading
of the compactors. This apron will be stained black in order to match the asphalt so as not to
be confused for a crosswalk. This proposal would require the compactors to be serviced from
the Ring Road. Staff has expressed concern regarding the proposed location On the Ring
Road and has conditioned the applicant to explore alternative locations for the compactOrs to
avoid potential conflicts with circulation and servicing of the compactors (COA#63). Should the
enclosurl;l bl;l 10catl;ld at the l;lxtl;lrior of thl;l Wl;lSt Garagl;l, staff has also included.a Condition of
. Approval rl;lquiring that the trash enclosure .be designl;ld to intl;lgrate with thl;l parking structurl;l
. architecture (COA #81).
G:IPlanl1ingl2007lPA07-M54 Promenade Mall valet aCC9$S minor modIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash Issues
. exp.doc
4
Parkina and Landscaoina
The approved Mall Expansion resulted in an excess of 179 parking spaces. This modification
will result in the loss of 40 spaces which still leaves the expansion over parked by 139 spaces.
The cumulative changes to the landscaping islands were minimal and the site still meets the
15% minimum landscape coverage requirement.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of public hearing was published in the Californian on August 25, 2007 and mailed to the
property owners within the required 600-foot radius. Via telephone and e-mail, the applicant
contacted representatives from Bel Villaggio, Temecula Commons (Power Center I), and
Power Center II regarding the modifications to the site plan. None of the parties had any
objections or concems.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The application for the proposed Modification Application 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
Commission find that the proposed Modification Application 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.
The proposed Modification Application does not involve significant new effects, does not
. change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of
substantial importance which shows that the Modification Application 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 Modification Application are adequately addressed by the prior
FEIR, ancl 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,hydtologyand water
quality, land use and. planning, niirieral resources, noise, population and housing, . public.
services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, were all studied as part
of the FEIR arid Adclendum. 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. Planning Application Nos. PA06-0293 and PA07 -0154 are the vehicles by which
the City confirms that the standards and requirements established in the Development
G:IPlannlng\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07lJ'ashlssues
exp.doc
5
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 Se.ction15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14
Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the Modification
Application, and no additional environmental documentation is required.
Although not required as part of the CEQA 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 Villaggio/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 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.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION.
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 Modification Application
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
DeveloDment Plan (Section 17.05.010.F ofthe Temecula MuniciDal Codel
1. The proposed use i.s 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 Commercia/(CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan and
the Retail Core designation in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The
General Plan has listed the proposed uses, including retail, professiohal office, and
seiVice-oriented . busines.ses, as. typics. I uses in. the Community Commercial
desigiration. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and Design Guidelines of the
SpecificP/an require 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
Agreementestablishes that the Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed
additional structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development
Agreement.
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash issues
exp.doe
6
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.
G:lPllinning\2007\PA07~154 Promenade Man valet access minor modIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 lrashissuas
exp.doc
7
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 9
2. Plan Reductions, Planning Application No. PA06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion Site
Plan - Blue Page 10
3. Plan Reductions, Planning Application No. PA07-0154 Modification Application - Blue
Page 11
4. PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 12
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
5. Initial Study - Blue Page 13
6. EIR Addendum - Blue Page 14
7. Conformed Copy of Notice of Determination for EIR Addendum - Blue Page 15
8 Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 16
G:\PIanning\2007\PA07-ll154 Promenade Mall valel'access minor modIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash issues
exp.doc
8
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade MaD valet access minor modIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash Issues
exp.doc . ..
.9
/ll
---;'\ r~~
I//~J'
" , II
11/ / /1
I,ll I'i
~'-"- I F-~~ "
-- ill ----'-1/
/11 k
t -~
\
2llO 520
I
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PLAN REDUCTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06"()293, PROMENADE MALL
EXPANSION SITE PLAN)
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade Mall valet access minOr modIPIannlngIPCSTAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash issues .
exp.doc .
10
W~1
, i oi
~ .~.
hjnU I
i"'
. -
g~~
z!illl~
S~G5
. ii _
. l 01
gii s- " =.
li~i~!lif~~
Ii lit~ii~ I:ili;a
~.
. ~-
I i~~::
I ".~~~
ldb...i
.
.'
" U;g
~~IJj
j;.;:~ .
ia '
lill~~
! i".~~~
i I~I ml'
.~ Ol
:, ~ ">
'_ _0_', ,~t -~
! lit ;11
lib
.1,"
'1-1
Mi
Jill
l~ll
'I '
n
ill /-j ~ l I 7 "/ '-''::::::~-::::--,--'
, ~\...L "~ ---.. ~ '
I I, '-=--_-.1---/ ( " --" ~!
, " ~.,. . ---~.,--~ f 7 "f "'-
, I, 7 T'''~ "'_J.~ l/;~r "
lij II i Ii' I TT,~0-.. /!/I /I
1.1, I J. ! I 'I' Ii' i I 1-.~ (!i'I,-~-v
:_,--1 'I - ,'-I f 'I" _, _', :-"/..,-: '.l _,j';"""",: '--'''_ '.....- -'- lil<< - , r,.
fb"" ~-L,", IIII;""~'-,-';:'>JI,'I'=' ~'~~
' ~ 7' ~ I , i /1,1 , I I _ . ~ /! 1 ,')
J _ r f -.,._': -/ C' :. --,-,. f' " t - " . ','-.' T: :.f ,'! "1[-' ,',: d'>
II'j'I",I",;"JJ/ I / -L} 1 I /1 j 1 11/ 11/;/(111 'j ~ ' '
__.' (,-11_,,/,':'/--:-:-"":: ,"-:."'_'.- ---.- ::" _' - ,~Jl...' -:____.,..L:.hL.'"-,_I,"::--
"1' -- '
'Ill/ (,
"I' . I
t '
.-' .
,
.. ---;'1
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PLAN REDUCTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA07-D154, MODIFICATION
APPLICATION) .
\
. .
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07 -0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPl8nningIPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash issues
exp.doc '
11
w
z
u
,
"
.~
,.
~5
~
... ~,
o
.,
~
.
"
J
~ IIIII
<I<J<l<l<l<l
I! i
Iii i~i
I n.~~~
w
~ao
8li5?i
6l(5
';"Oz
~oc<
o~o
~
[1511
!~3 ~
:~~ I ',',I
I~il Hi
· Ii <Ii
IS I i I n~~
I d.~~~ !.Ihs
I' ~'.tllllllll ~
.
~ ., ~.
~ wO' !lB"
'I;nh I din
h~"'~N ...
~.
I Uu
I~S~".
I
.
I 1-
IIUI
'll
. I tL~~ L !;l~""<'-:.E~~> " '<; nl,nU ,II
'.. -', G,', ''\, '-J '\.I ,
' . I", ~,,~, .... '
I "--'-_-:-c:==.:::.~ ///'1; r"<:'::,'" '.
' I ' r · , , J ' . . ~" !l1J , ~0 '"
' , I':,., I I . >'. 7 , '.' ""', ',.~
J {,.... I I' , I 1 I 'r ~~' ~','6-:-.., " "',
' /1 I 1! I I i I I' r il _ __, _ "~~\. " /
1 'I ,~," 1 I / / I ;' ! I I; i , / ); rfr'I I '1 S. ,,/ ~~\:" ,
I;, r, 'I /' I, / 'I / '/." l!ii / '. ,,',.
I I, I fiT 'I ...1 J I I L I / I I &Ju ". 'f' I
I I, I I I I , . 1 .J. ,,1 1 ' , . c . ,
\
I~
,
1\
~.
w
u
~ !i '
. 0
"':zt>
~iii~
.;'!jlJ;o
w
. .
0.,
~el~
i:l-<:> .
~~15.
. ~!!!a.
!;1~:2
B
w. "I
z.. ~
.. ill j
~~ ~
~g \
<~
11.
~
6 " II B ~!i w ~ ~~I
i.- :; ~. . i~ i ~ " ,. I~~l ~<
lila' ti~ II ~. ~ ~ " ~~
. z
I p~~ -I · o ~ :5'!~ I j I
~. if i!~ _,.~_ , II - Ii S"i ~;;
..~to - <1-
I i~~!;11 An u I ~~ i ~ "_
I t.j~.1 !s;.. 1~lhi h.!d I~ i"" ~ 3 ~ wiil I!~i 'li
I ..~~~ 0 ~~
I!:! ~Jg~ ..'a.. ~iUtll iiii !iI !HI ll... ~
>-
w
UZ
...,z
W
0..
-
.-
-
-
::: I-
--
- Q
-
D <
- Q
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
It -
-
-
-
[
~i~tttl~ \
::-:::-O>~._.
~
. ,,~-l
/:
1"'-.
~'J
;J
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-_
G:lPlanning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade Mall valet aCcess minor modlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash issues
exp.doc
12
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA07-0154, A SITE PLAN
MODIFICATION TO CHANGE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS,
DRIVE AISLE CONFIGURATION, PARKING LAYOUT FOR
VALET SERVICE, AND LANDSCAPING OF THE
APPROVED TEMECULA PROMENADE MALL
EXPANSION (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0293)
Section 1. Procedural Findinos. 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 Plim (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 jnto 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 26,2006 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 CAddendum"). A Notice of
Determination was filed with the County Clerk of Riverside County as required by law On
September 13,2006.
E. On February. 21, 2007 the Planning Commission approved Planning
Application No. PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans.
G:\Planning\2007\P A07 -0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor mod\Planning\PC Resolution Mall Major
Mod.doc .
F. On May 16, 2007, Forest City Development filed Planning Application No.
PA07-0154, a Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code.
G. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
H. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on September 5, 2007, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by 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.
I. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA07-0154,
subject to and based upon the findings set forth in this Resolution.
J. 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:
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Codel
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 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 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 additiona/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, arid 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
G:\Planning\2007\P A07 -0154 Promenade Mall valet ac<:!,ss minor mod\Planning\PC Resolution Mall Major
Mod.doc
2
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.
Section 3. Environmental Determinations. In accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning
Commission has considered the proposed Modification Application:
A. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
No. 263, approved by the Council as EIR No. 340 on October 11, 1994, including the
impacts and mitigation 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
Modification Application 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.
B. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Modification
Application does 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 Modification Application 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 Modification Application 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, 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 based on the FEIR and. Addendum establish that the mitigation measures
contained in the FEIRand the terms of the Development Agreement will reduce those
impacts to a level that is less than significant. Planning Application Nos. PA06"0293
.and PA07-0154 are the vehicles by which the City confirms that the standards and
requirements established in the Development Agreement for the Developer's vested
tight 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 CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.
15164) is the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the Modification Application,
and no additional environmental documentation is required.
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07'-0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modlPlanninglPC Resolution Mall Major
Mod.doc
3
C. Although not required as part of the CEQA review, the Commission
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 Villaggio/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 Deyelopment Agreement extending the
term of the Development Agreement, and all other materials, which constitute 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. Aoorovals. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
. hereby approves Planning Application No. PA07-0154 subject to the Conditions of
Approval. set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modlPlanninglPC Resolution Mall Major
Mod.doc
4
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 5th day of September 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 Resolution No. 07- was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th
day of September 2007, by the following vote: .
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\Planning\2007\P A07 -0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor mod\Planning\PC Resolution Mall Major
Mod.doc
5
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
G:IPlanning\2007\P A07 -0154 Promenade Mall vaJ.et access minor modlPlanninglPC Resolution MaJ.1 Major
Mod.doc
6
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA07..o154
Project Description:
A site plan Modification Application to change a building
footprint, drive aisle, parking orientation for valet, and
landscaping ofthe approved Temecula Promenade Mall
Expansion Plans (PA06..o293)
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
910-420..005 thru ..009
MSHCP Category:
DIF Category:
TUMF Category:
Not Applicable per Development Agreement
Not Applicable per Development Agreement
Retail Commercial
Development Mitigation
Fee:
$2.00/SF per Development Agreement
Expiration Date:
September 5,2007 .
September 5, 2010 (three years consistent with
Development Agreement)
. Approval Date:
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicanUdeveloper 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 applicanUdeveloper has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void byreason of
failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c}).
G:\Planning\2007\PA07 .(1154 .Pronienade Mall valel access minor modIPIannlng\DRAFT COAs PC Mall Major MOd.doc
1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:\Planning\2007lPA07-0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlanninglDRAFTCOAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
2
Planning Department
2. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans shall apply to
this site plan Modification Application.
3. The applicant shall sign both copies of the Final Conditions of Approval that will be provided
by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for
their files.
4. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense ofthe action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
5. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this project.
6. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula
Regional Center EIR.
.. 7. This approval shall be used within three 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.
8. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed 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.
9. . A DevelopmentPlim,to be reviewed and approved bythePlannirig Commission (as a
current business. item - no public hearing), shall be submitted for the architectu~1
elevations of the retail and restaurant buildings, as well as the mall entrances (new and
existing remodels), plazas and paseos,parkinglot landscaping, and four-sided elevations of
th~p~rlsing structures before building permits are issued for the respective buildings. . The
development planshall substantially conform to the approved site plan and conceptual
elevations presented to the Planning Commission on February 21, 2007, and site plan
Modification Application on September 5, 2007.
. .
.10. . The applicant shall submit a.comprehensive plan for fa,.ade improvements and signage
modifications to the existing mall buildings/signs for the review and approval of the Planning
Commission(as a current business item- no public hearing) to'ensure the expansion is
compatible with the existing center. .
G:\Plannlngl2007\PAOHJ154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlanninglDRAFT COPOS PC Mall Major Mod.doc
3
11. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
12. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10"
glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored
architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall
be readable on the photographic prints.
13. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash bins utilized on the site. These shall
be clearly labeled on site plan.
14. 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.
15. The applicant shall provide75 park and ride spaces on the upper level ofthe 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.
16. The valet parking field will be cordoned off during non~business hours to prevent the public
from being double-parked in the eight spaces that front along the entrance to Main Street.
Public Works Department
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. All improvement plans, grading plan shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
20. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent
post-construction water qlJality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent
nOri-pelTTlitted runoff from dischargingoffsite or entering any storm drain system or receiving
water.
Building and Safety Department
21. All design comporientsshaUcomply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition orthe
CalifomiaBuilding, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code;
Califomia Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access
Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q154 Promenade'Mall valet acx:ess minor modlPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
4
22. The City ofTemecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area
wide Transportation Unifonn Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance
on March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of
building pennit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01
and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building pennit issuance.
23. 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.
24. A receipt or clearance letter from the T emecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
25. Obtain all building plans and pennit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
26. Show all building setbacks.
27. Developments with multi-tenant buildings or shell buildings shall provide a house electrical
meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire
alann systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall
clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the
operation of exterior lighting and fire alannsystems when a house meter is not specifically
proposed.
28. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
29. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans (Califomia Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1 , 1998).
30. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. .
31. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and pennits.
32. Signage shall be posted corispicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shOwn below, as allowed by the City ofTemecula Ordinance No 94-
21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside Courity Ordinance No 457.73, for any site within
one-quarter mile of an occupied residenCe.. . .
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m;- 6:30 p.m.
SatUrday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
'No work is.pennitted on Sundays or Govemment Holidays
33. Prior to submitting .for plan review, obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior
to submittal for plan review. Site plan to indicate all suite numbering' iri direct correlation
with addressing and proposed buildings~
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07 '()154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlannlnglORAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
5
34. At plan review submittal, truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and
the truss manufacturer engineer are required.
35. At plan review submittal, provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check
accessibility for persons with disabilities.
36. Prior to beginning construction, a pre-construction meeting is required with the building
inspector.
Fire Prevention Bureau
39. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC .
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and oft-site (6" x 4" x 2-21/2"
outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be
located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
road(s) frontage to 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).
. 40. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2).
Community Services. Department
41. All Conditions of Approvalfor Planning Application No. PA06-0293, Promenade Mall
Expansion Plans shall apply to this site plan Modification Application.
42. . The developer' shall .contact the' City's franchised solid. waste hauler for disposal of
construction and demolition dElbris. Only the City's franchisee may haul c6nl?truction and
demolition debris. . .
. .
43. All Trash Services areas shall include a trash enclosurEl fOrtwo bins dedicated to recycling
or a separate compactor dedicated to recycling, inadditionto the trash compactors.
44. The developer shall coordinate with the City's franchised hauler as to the specifics of the
compactors.
G:lPlanning\2007\PA07'{)154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
6
45. The Trash Service area for Building I, which does not have a trash compactor; shall have
trash enclosure space to accommodate a minimum of four trash bins with at least one
dedicated to recycling.
46. Recycling cans shall be located adjacent to public trash cans along the "Main Street"
shopping area and within the parking structure.
47. Per the 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.
48. All landscaping, fencing and on site lighting shall be maintained by the business
maintenance association.
Police Department
49. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding all buildings and parking
structures are kept at a height of no more than three feet 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
six foot clearance from the buildings and parking structures.
b. Any berms should not exceed three feet in height.
c. The placement of all landscaping should be in compliance with guidelines from
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).
50. Lighting: All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and
minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting
Ordinance, Califomia Govemment 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 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 Govemors Order to address the power crisis became effective March 18, 2001.
his bill calls for a substantial reduction from businesses to cut usage during non-
business hours. The order; in part; states: . "All Califomia 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 wamingby 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 Califomia Govemment Code."
G:\Ptanning\2007IPA07 '()154 Promenade Mall valel access minor modIPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
7
51. Hardware: Recommend all doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other
miscellaneous hardware is commercial or institution grade.
52. Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings should be removed or painted
over within 24 hours of being discovered. Report all crimes to the T emecula Police 24-hour
dispatch center (951) 696-HELP.
53. Alarm System: Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alarm.
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 offices, suites, and
businesses located within a specific building should have their own alarm system. This
requirement is void if business is operated 24/7.
54. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches should be painted "Intemational Orange."
55. 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.
56. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be
.marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the Califomia Vehicle Code. .
57. Crime Prevention:
a. All retailing businesses shall contact the California Retailers Association for their
booklet on the Califomia Retail Theft Law at: Califomia Retailers Association 1127-
11th Street, Suite 1030, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-1975. Penal Code 490.5
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.
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 available 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 Poliqe Departmentaffordsallretailerst~e opportunity to. participate in
the "Inkless Ink Program." At a minimal cost of less than $40.00 for inklessinkpads,
retailers can take a thumbprint of every customer using a personal check to pay for
services. A decal is also posted 6n 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:\Plaiming\2007\PA07-Q154 Promenade Mall ""let access minor modIPlannlngIDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
8
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING. PERMITS
G:\Plannlng\2007\PAOr-0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor mod\P1annlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod;doc
9
Planning Department
58. The construction plans shall indicate the installation of bicycle and motorcycle parking
facilities consistent with Section 17.24.040 of the Development Code.
59. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical
plans for verification of proper placement oftransformer(s) and double detector check prior
to final agreement with the utility companies.
60. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project
site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by
the Director of Planning.
61. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at hislher sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the ,City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan' or other corrective measures have been approved by the
Director of Planning."
Public Works Department
62. 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.
63. Refuse collection In the vicinity of Buildings C and E with regard to location, hours of
operation, and details of service shall be accepted by the Director of Public Works.
64. 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. .
. .
. .'
65. A Soil RliPort shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submittecUo 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.
66. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qiJalified 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
G:\PlannlngI2007\PA07-o154 Promenade Mallvalel access minor modIPlannlfllllllRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
. 10'
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
67. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and
identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect
the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream
facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
68. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading,
Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's
standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control.
69. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for
Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number
(WDID) 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.
70. The proposed location and design of the West Entrance on the East ParKing Structure shall
be as approved by the Director of Public WorKs.
71. 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 Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
d. Dep,artmentof Public WorKs
e. Community Services Department
72. 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.
73. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans s!1all be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Departmentof Public WorKs for review and approval.
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-ll154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
11 '
Fire Prevention Bureau
74. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required (CFC 903.2).
75. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be 45 feet (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020).
76. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved Fire Department vehicle access roads. Fire Department access roads shall be an
all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
77. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24
feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet six inches (CFC
902.2.2.1 ).
78. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC 902.2.2.6
Ord.99-14).
79. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of 150 feet which
have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus
(CFC 902.2.2.4).
80. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1).
G:lPlanning\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
12
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
. .
. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q154 Promenade Mall valel access minor modIPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Man Major Mod.d<ic
13
85. 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.
86. All downspouts shall be intemalized.
87. 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 aHime 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 $hall be planted within the outdoor plaza atthe proposed 'new mall
entrance' between Buildings A arid B (in lieu of the palm trees illustrated on the
cOnceptual plans). ..
d. Provide an agronomic soils report with the construction landscape plans.
e. Provide one copy ofthe approved grading plan.
t. Provide water usage calculations per Chapter17.32 of the Development Code
(Water Efficient Ordinance). .
g. Provide total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved
plan).
G:\P\anning\2007\PA07~154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
. M .
h. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the
proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and
landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved
maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor
who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
i. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be
required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being
pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure.
The second inspection will verify that aU 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.
88. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show
and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone
around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen.
Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like
an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utUities. Locate all light poles on
plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. .
89. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
90. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on
a nine-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals
. shall be painted with a standard nine-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 DeplIrtment
91. 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 TemeculaStandard No. 207A.
c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be Constructed along public street frontages in
aecordancewith City of TemeculaStandardNo. 400.
. .
92. . Provide a full aCcess movement from PoWer Center One to the Promenade Ring Road.
. Details of the access road, parking stalls and relocation of the transformer shall be reviewed
and approved prior to obtaining a building permit for the retail and restaurant portion of the
project. .
. .
93. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be accepted by the City prior to the first
building permit. The WQMP will be prepared bya registered Civil Engineer and include site
design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment mechanisms.
G:\Plannlng\2007IPA07 -0154 .Promenade Mall valet access minor modlPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
15
94. Evaluate all access points to the ring road for visibility conflicting movements and eliminate
access points which adversely impact traffic flows.
95. The nine parking stalls that are on the east side of the East Parking garage shall be
eliminated.
96. 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.
97. Prior to issuance of a building permit for buildings "A", "C" and "E" of the retail and
restaurant portion of the project, a lot line adjustment between parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel
Map 28530-1 shall be approved and recorded with the County Recorders Office.
98. 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.
99. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otheiwise
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.
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
e. Minimum road widths of 22 feet paved with 26-fooU30-foot right"Of-ways or
easements (shown on typical section).
f. Knuckles are required at all 90 degre~ 'bends' in the road.
g. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards (200 foot
minimum).
h. Cui de sac geometries shall meet current City Standards.
i. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should
be identified on the site plan).
j. Parallel parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a
minimum safe distance from intersections~
k. Identify whether gates will be proposed at. entrances to the service areas. If so,
. configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be reviewed and
apPl'9ved by TCSD, FirePrevention ~ureau andthe Department. of public Works.
I. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90 degree.s)~
1 00. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially conStructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer.
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. .
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-()154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modlPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
16
101. The Developer shall pay to the Development Mitigation Fee in compliance with the Planning
Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement) and the Planning Application No.
PA06-0197 (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.
102. 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
103. All Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA06-0293, Promenade Mall
Expansion Plans shall apply to this site Plan Modification Application.
Fire Prevention Bureau
104. 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
241-4.1).
105. All locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle
access roads to within 150 feetto any portion ofthe facility or any portion of an exterior wall
of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed
for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC sec 902).
106. Fire sprinkler plims shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three
sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractorto the Fire Prevention
Bureau.
107. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the FirePrevention Bureau for approval. Three sets
of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the FirePrevention Bureau.
108. Fuelmodificaticin plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval for. all open space. areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface (CFC
Appendix II-A). . .
. .
. .
. .
109. Plans forstruc::ttiral protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fireprevention
. Bureau for r~view and approval. The measures Shilll. include, but are not limited to,
enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification
zones (CFC Appendix II-A). .
110. A full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
This report shall address, but not be limited to, all. fire and life safety measures per 1998
CFC,1998 CBC, NFPA~13, 24, 72 and 231-C.
G:\Plannlng\2007iPA07-0154 Promenade Manvalet access minor modIPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.dOc
17 .
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.
J
G:\PIannlngl2007IPA07'()154 Promenade Mall valet access minOr modIPlannlngIDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
18
. PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:\PIannlng\2007\PA07'6154 Promenade MaD valet access minor modIPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
. 19
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 determined by
the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with
the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning
Department for a period of one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if
the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to
. the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant.
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 spare 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 orlicenlie plates issued for persons with
disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed by telephoning (951) .696-3000..
. .
117. In addition to the aboverequiremerits, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification signd!lplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
three square feetin size. . .
118. All site improvements including but not limited to parkirig areas and striping shall be
installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. ..
" .
. 119. The applicant shall provide 75 park-and-ridespaces 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 stripEKlprior to issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy.
G:\PIannlng\2007\PA07-Q15:4 Promenade Mall valet accass minor modIPlannlnglORAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.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 ouUined in the WQMP
have been constructed and 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 Bureau
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).
Prior to issuance of ,a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of
, a contrasting cOlor to their background. Commercial, multi~family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum 12-inch numberS with suite numbers a minimum of six
inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six-inch high letters and/or numbers on
both the front and rear doors (CFC 901.4.4). ' '
, ,
, ,
, ' "r
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 .llprinkler system
(CFC Article '10, C~CChapter 9). '
127.
128.
129.
. . .
. .. .' '.
, Prior to issuimce of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on arequiremerit for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratorylist6ct celJtral station. Plans
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau 'for a-pproval prior to installation (CFC
Article 10).
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07.Q154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlanningIDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
'~ ' '
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 feet in height and be located to
the right side of the main entrance door (CFC 902.4).
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.
134. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval
per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105). .
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07.Q154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
~ .
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
,/
G:\PIannlng\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade Mall valet access minor mod\PIanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
23 '
135. 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.
136. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's 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.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07~154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc
. ~ .
D COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY D
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
October 18,2006
City ofTemecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attentioo: Cheryl KitzerowlMatt Peters
RE: Development Plan No. PA06-0213
To Whom It May Concern:
Department of Environmental Heahh has reviewed the development plan to construct a 126,square foot
outdoor life-style main street shopping center at the Promenade MaIL Water and sewer services are
being provided.
1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUll..DING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING
SHOULD BE REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water district.
b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
. a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
CaIiforniaUniform,Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food
Facility Plan Examiners at (951) 461.0284. '
W,ulfCG ~ G ~n ~~~,
\uu OCT 2 3 2006 W
~X=--,.. -
Local Eafo'ceme.IAlieoicy" EO. 80x1280, Riverside. CA 92502-1280 '(9091955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653,' 4080 Lemon Street: 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
Land lJseand'Waltt Englneeilnlf' P.O; Box 1206, Riverside. CA92502-1206 '(909) 955-8980', FAX (909) 955-8903' 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd'Roor. Riverslde,'CA 92501
@
RadII
later
Board of Directors
.... R. .......
President
Stepheu J. Corolla
Sr. Vice President
Ra1ph IL Dally
Usa D.1IermaD.
I'obn Eo Hoaeland
Michael R. McMiUan
W'dIiam. Eo PlWllDlel'
Officers:
Brian J. Bract,
General~
Phillip L ForlJes
Assistant General Manager f
Chief PinandaI Officer
E.P."Bob-LemoQlll
Director or Engineering
Perry R. Louck
Director of Planning
JetfD. Anu..etrouc
Contn>IIu
KeIIlIl. .......
District Secretary
C. MicbaeI CoweU
Be8t Best: & Kriepr LLP
GonenI Cowuoel
October 9,2006
Cheryl Kitzerowand Matt Peters, Project Planners
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
I . ....... --..-......-_.
r f""2 .'i ,-", ri "'.-:!i"
IlnI.1r' ~~ !io i. ii' 'I '...1.
tJ I L::.. l.~, b., ~_~. .;!'
i < ; I.
IllI
: i:.'I' OCT 1 6 2006
U! :
~ ~.
~y
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
PROMENADE MALL EXPANSION
PARCEL "B" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA02-0179,
PARCEL "B" OF LOT LINE.AD.mSTMENT PAOI-0304, AND
PARCEL NO,S 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. Kitzerowand 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 flicilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD
and the property owner.
, If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements. . . . . . .
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water mAnaeement rights, ifany, to RCWD. All
on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of
RCWD.' ..
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office. .
.' Sincerely,
. .
!I1w-RmAWAITADmmcr
Corey F. Wailace,P.E. .
DevelopmentEligineering Manager . .
cc: LaurieWilIiams,Engineering Services Supervisor
'06\CW:aI065\FEG
" . '.,' ," 'Raodwc8utondaW.aterDUtrict .:". :". -' ".
", 42135 WmCheSter~'. PostOl6ceBOx 9017' -Thmecula.Califon1ia 92589-9017- . C951l296.GAOO .-Il'AY lQIt'J\9W:-"IY!i.- .
ATTACHMENT NO.5
.INITlAL STUDY
. .
. .
. .
G:IPlannlng12007IPA07-o154.Promenade Mall valel.access mlncirmodlPlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash Issues
exp.doc .. ..
13
- _n ~ _ u__
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
INmAL 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 ...........................................
1. Land Use & Planning ........................................................................................
2. Public.Services......................................................................................;...........
3. Utilities and Service Systems..........................;.................................................
4. Population & Housing .......................................................................................
5. Transportation I Circulation.................................................................;.............
6. Water................................................................................................................;
7. Biological Resources ........................................................................................
..8; Energy and Mineral Resources ........................................................................
9. Cultural Resources ...;.......................................................................................
'10. Recreation .................................................................;........................................
1t. Aesthetics.......................;;.................................................................................
12. Geophysical ................;...................................~.................................................
13. Hazards ..........................................................................;............................;.....
14. N?ise ...:..........................................................~..................................................
"15. Air Quality ...........................................................................................J...............
. 16. Mandatory Finding of Significance...;........;.......................................................
1.7. Department of Fish and Game 'De Minimis' Impact Findings ..........................
"1'8., Earlier Analyses ............;................................................;..................................
. . AtTACHMENTS
. Attachment 1: SpecifIC impacts that are unavoidable are listed on page which is reprodUCed as
. Attachment 1 to this document . .' .
(
14
14
16
19
.22
23
26
28
30
32
33
34
36
38
40
42
43
45
45
'T__CenI8r
i6I SIudy/tI83'oe
-ii-
TOM OODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES
Figure 1
Regional Location
Figure 2
Site Location
T_ RegionaJ CenIo<
InlUalSIudv>ll8:l106
-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 T emecula
43200 Business Park Drive
T emecula, CA 92590
Don Hazen, Principal Planner
City of T emecula
(951) 694-6400
The proposed project is an amendmenlto 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 T emecula bound by Winchester Road to the north,
Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez
Road to the west within an unsectioned area of Township 7 South,
Range 3 West San Bernardino Meridian on the USGS Murrieta
Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map (see Figures 1 and
2). .
5. . Project Description Summary:
A proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the Temecula
Regional Center Development Agreement an additional three years to provide for the future
development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan.
6. Proj~t Sponsor:
. Temecula Towne Center Associates,loP.
II. PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Background, Purpose, and Need
. The City of TemecUla proposes to extend a Development Agreement (due to expire in January
4007) for a periOd of. three years to expire on January 16, 2010, for subsequent construction of the
final phaseofretail commercial space and parking facilities within the T emecula Regional Center
core commercial area in an area cUrTentlyexistingas a paved parking lot. Thepr6posedprojeCt
. would be developed within Planning Area 2 of theTemeculiiRegional Center Specific Plan (SP263)
locatecl primarily between the current Macy'sdepartment 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 has2,117 ,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
. TemocuIa Rogic>n3J Centor
Initial SlUdy1083106 .
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
CityofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL 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,
Core/Support Retail .
Business Park/Office .40-1 . 5.49 810,000
Subtotal 175.26 2,483,000
Roads 26.04 0
Project Total 201.30 2,483,000
\
T_ RegionaJ CenIsr
InltIaIS\udyAlII3106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
The T emecula Regional Center currently has the following existing and approved square footage of
development (existing and approved development plans):
Table 2
Approved, Existing and Proposed Development
Specific Plan 263 - Temecula Regional Center
Existing Approved Total Existing
(Square Feet) and/or under and/or approved
construction .. (Square Feet)
(Square Feet)
Mixed Use
Retail, Commercial, Core/Support
Retail,
Business Park/office 2,099,195 18,350 2,117,545
The current Development Agreement, adopted .in December 1996, sets forth the obligations of the
developer and the City required to be met in order for development of the Specific Plan to. be
developed consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. Under the proposed DevelopmentAgreement,
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, LP., and the City to complete
the Specific Plan process.
Project Location
The proposed project is located within the 179 acres (excluding roads) Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan (SP No.. 263) in the City ofTemecula bound by. Winchester Road to the north,
Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west.
Construction Scenario
Construction will consist of the final phase of development andparkirig stnictures that would occur
.at the TemeculaRegional Center within the core retail area, central mall. The eXl;lct schedule would
depend upon market conditions and. availability of materials. vConstruction is envisioiledas .
occurring between early 2007 and late 2009 and is estimated to encompass approximately one year
to compleleduring this period.' .
.. .
. .
. .
During construction, detours and other traffic n'umagElInent methods would..be .employed as
necessary within the constraints of the surrounding site as needed. No off-site traffic would be
disturbed during Construction.
. Temoc:ul8 RegionaJ CeI..,;
InIllaISIudyI1l831C16
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
CiIy 01 Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Existing Surrounding Land Uses
The land uses in the vicinity of the project are high-intensity urban uses. There is a mixture of
commercial, office, and residential land uses consisting of multifamily residences, retail commercial
areas, office and industrial development.. The proposed project site is within the Temecula Regional
Center, known locally as the 'Promenade Mall'. The Temecula Regional Center is completely
. disturbed, graded, andlor paved;
Interstate 15, a primary north-south transportation corridor, is within one quarter mile of the site.
Utility infrastn,rcture (electricity, water, sewer, and natural gas) exists at the project site throughout
the Specific Plan area. Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road and Overland Drive provide
general access to the project vicinity. .
Other Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
The developer must submit a Notice of Intent (riI01) to the State Water Resources Control Board for
a construction NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit. This permit is
granted automatically by submittal of an NOI to the State Board, but is enforced through a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies construction best management practices
for the site. The San Diego Regional Board enforces the SWPPP.
The project occurs within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area, however, it
will not be subject to review by the W~stem 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 Temecula certified and adopted an Environmental Impact Report for
the T emecula Regional Center Specific Plan in 1993 which included construction and operation of a .
regional retail center, business and office.uses and other mixed uses including residential and hotel
development. The EIR evaluated the impact of the development of the uses listed in Table 1. The
. existing"and approved developmentllSSociated with the Specific Plan is listed in Table .2.
The first amendment to the Development Agreement and implementation of the final phase of
. ...development forUle TemeculaRegiorial Qanter may,.therefore, be considered a second-tier project
. being implem.ented underthe existing certified EIR. The City must detelll1ine whether the proposed
project results in new significant impacts not evaluated in the certified EIR and must decide what the .
. appropria~ q~ClA~nvil\:)nmerital"deterniination.is to make if it chooses to approve and implement
this second~tier project. .. " .
. .
. .
. ..
." . . . .
In this case, the Tem~la AegionalC6nterEIR describes the whole project in terms of objectives
. :and facilities and evaluates the cumulative impact of implementing the totaJproject overtime with all
its elements. Under this, implementation of specific project components can be reviewed in the
context of the certifiedEIA findings. In this instance,. the specific project being considered by.the
City at this time is the extensio.n of the approved Dev~lopment Agreement for an additional three
. years and IX'nstructi6n of the final phase of the T emecula Mall as provided for in the T.emecula
T_ RegionaICenI8r
_ SlullyM83106
TOM DODSON & AssOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
/
Regional Center certified EIR. Where activities or facilities being implemented for this project fall
within the scope of impacts identified in the certified EIR, the CEQA review process for this facility
can be minimized through reliance on the certified EIR to determine whether the potential impacts
f,""m 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 CECA Guidelines, if subsequent environmental review is
. required (Section 15162. CECA Guidelines). Existing cOnditions used to make impact forecasts in
this Initial Study are not necessarily assumed to be the same as those ili the ErR, as the project site
for the final phase of development is now within the existing regional center. Analysis presented in
.this Initial Study will use a combination of existing conditions used in the EIR and existing today,
depending on the most appropriate baseline for a conservative analysis.
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines states: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a
negative declaration adopted fora 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
previolis 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 previouilly 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 discussedin the previous
E1R or Negative Declaration;
(8) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR; .
(C) Mitigationmeasures oraltematives previously found not to be f8asible 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 initigation measure or
altematives; or
T emecuIa RegIonaJ Cenler
_Study<lJ83108 . TOM DoDSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula 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 altemative.
Section 15163 requires a supplement to an EtR in the following circumstances:
(a)
The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than
a subsequent EIR if; .
(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR, and
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
The City of T emecula was the. Lead Agency for the certified EIA. Thus, in this case the City, acting
as the CEOA Lead Agency fo.r 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 EIA. To facilitatethis 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 per;tinent data for all issues are provided in the Initial Study evaluation which follows. Copies of .
the EIR are available at the CityofTemecula, 43200 Business Pari< Drive, Temecula, CA92590
The second test that may be used to determine whether a second-tier project falls within the scope
of anJEIR is to determine whether new circumstances or reessessment.of previously identified
impacts may result in new significant impacts. As the text in Sections 15162(a) indicates "no
. .subsequentEIR shall be prepar~ 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;
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertilken and which. may result in new significant environmental effects or substantial
increase in the severity .of previously identified significant effects; or ..
2.
. ..
3.
. .
NeWinformation 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 CEQAprocedure to implement for the proposed project. To comply with CEQA and the.
CECA Guidelines, this hiitisl Study is being prepared to determine if environmental impacts of the
T_ RoglonaI Cenlor
_ Sludy/083106
TOM DoDSON & AsSOCIATES
city 01 T emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
proposed project were encompassed by the impact analyses contained in the EIA prepared for the
T emecula Aegional Center. Based on the evaluation provided in this Initial Study, the City will make
one cif the following environmental determinations to comply with CEQA for this project:
. The proposed project's environmental effects were encompassed by the environmental
evaluation in the EIA. No new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects beyond those evaluated and mitigated in the EIA 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 EIA 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 CEQA 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 EIA have occurred. Under this circumstance, an Addendum to
, a previously certified EIA can be prepared and adopted.
. ' The Initial Study identifies potential impacts that fall outside the impact forecast in the ErA and
since such impact(s) cannot be mitigated below a less than significantlevel, a subsequent
EIA must be prepared.
The .Initial Study Environmental'Checklist Form follows.
T......... Regional CenIsr,
InlIIaI S>ldy.ll83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
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 impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' or 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated',
as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use & Planning
Public Services
Water
Aesthetics
Utilities & Service Systems
Population & Housing
Transportation/Circulation
Mandatory Rndings of Significance
Biological Resources
Energy & Mineral Resources
Geophysical
Hazan:ls
Cultural Resources
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.
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 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. " "
. "
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 ill aneariier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eariier EIA,
illcluding~ions or mitigatiOn"measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An
Addendum" will be adopted by the City as the appropriate CECA" environmental
detemination for this project. "
Name
~~~A"- ~<;'"~
? /C~~7
""'Date: f~~"'oC-
BY:
f)//"Z-€ cAn .
Title
Temecula _ Cer4er
lnIlIaISludy>\l83100
TOM DODSON & AssOCiATES'
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources the City cites in the parentheses following each question. A 'No
Impacf answer is adequately supported If the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projec~ like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A 'No Impacf 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 partlcular issue (e.g. the constructJon of infrastructure will not impact
parking capacity). The source reference in the parentheses would be 'not applicable' or (N/A).
. .......(and_.......-.Sauocoot.
-.
....-
-
Potenlially Less than
....- __ No
.............. - -
Would the proposal:
InsuffICient parking capacity? (N/A)
y
2) All answers must take account of the whole aellon involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational .'
impacts. .
3) 'Potentially Significant Impacf is appropriate If an effect is significant or potentially signifICant, or If the
Planning' Department staff lacks Information to make a finding of insignifICance. If there are one or
more 'Potentially Significant Impacf entries when the determ,ination is made, an EIRis reQuired. .
4) 'Potentially SignifICant Unless Mitigated' applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has .
reduced an effect from 'Potentllilly Significant Impacf to a 'Less than SignifICant Impacf. 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 SectJon 17, "Earlier Analyses," may be
cross-referenced). .
5)' Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an
effect has bEKin adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative deClaration. Sectlon 15063(c)(3)(0).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 16at the end of thechecklisl
. .
. .
... .
6) .' A reference list of information souroes for potentiaUmpacts (e.g. general plans, zoning onfll1ances) 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. "
. '.
. . -<and_......-.Soimoos):
-.
....-
-
PotenaaIIy Less-than
....- ....- No
-- - -
. Would the propoSal reslilt in potential
impacts involving:
landslides or mudslides? (1, 7)
T__CenIo<
..... SludyoOO3108
TOM DODSON & AssocIATES
CII}r of Temecula
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 T emecula 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 PlanlElR, Temecula Regional Center (Specific Plan 263).
199311994.
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. ACEOA 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
10. . Other: Riverside Countv Flood Control District 'SuDDlement A to the Riverside Countv
.
Drainaae Area Manaaement Plans. and Attachment to SUDDlement A'. 1996
11. Other: San Dieao Reaional Water Qualitv Control Board Water Qualitv Control Plan (Basin
PlanI1997. .
12. Other: California Enerav Commission 'ELECTRICITY ReDorl'. November 1997
13. Other: Development Agreement By. And Between The City of Temecula, Forest City
Development California, Inc., A California Corporation, And LGA-7.lnc., An Illinois
Corporation, December 1996. . . . .
14. . Other: Final EIR, T(lmeculaGeneral Plan Update, March 2005.
. 15.- Other: First Amendment to Development Agreement, By And Between The City of
Temecula and Temecula To~e AsSociates, LP., September 2006.
16. Other: Wilbur Smith AsSociates, Temecula Regional Center Traffic Study Update, Janu!lly
1~. . .... .
17. Other. Wilbur Smith AsSociates, T emecula Regional. Center TraffIC Study Update,. City
Planning. Questions Concerning Consistency With The SpElcificPlan EIR Traffic
Study Find!ngs, May 1997. .....
18. Other: Wilbur$mith Associates,CostcoRelot:ation'Traffic Study, October 1999.
19. Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, Consistency Letter for Planned Promenade Mall
Expansion, May 2001. . .... .' . ". .' . . .
20. Other: Aesolution No. 93-57 of the City of Temecula, certifying the EIA and approval of the
mitigation monitOring plan for SP 263 by the City of T emecula, July 1993. .
"
T........._CenIBr
InItialSlucly_l06
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of T emecula
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 infonnation sources cited in the parentheses following each question.
Issues (and SUpporting ....0l1l'l8ti0n Souroes):
PoIentIally Potentially less than
........... ........... Si_ No
....... . .............. ....... .......
1. LAND USE 8< PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
loning? (la, 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) AIIect agricultural resources or operations?
(la, 1d, 2)
d) Disrupt or dIvide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a Iow-
income or minority community)? (1,2. 14)
e) Be compatible with existing land use in the
vicinIty? (1, 2, 14)
Substantiation:
y
y
y
. The general impacts to land use and planning of the Ternecula Regional Center, of which the proposed project
is acomponenl. are forecast on pages V-l to V-ll and V-70 to V-76 and throughout the Temecula Regional
CenterEIR Land use impacts, both direct and indirect, were identified as beIng less than significant, with
one exception, from implementing the proposed regional center. Tlie EIR concluded that the utililation of this
site would result in the 10Sl; of approximately 201.3 acres of pasture crops and dryland graIns and lands
designated as 'Local Imporlant fannland' and Prime Fannland.. This was identified as an unavoidable,
. significant adverse land use impact of constructing and Qpef'lIting the Temecula Regional Center (TRC).
1 a. ImDacts Remain the Sarne or Less Than as Characterized In theTRC EIR. The proposed development
agreement and implementation of the fmal phase of.the approved specific plan for the Temecula .
. Regional Center would not conflict with the general plan designation or specifIC plan zoning. TJ:le final
. phase of development of the T emecula RegloOai Center is part of the Implementation of the approved
specific plan for the. site and General Pia!1 designatIOn for COinmerolaf 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 th~S8l'l1eortessThanCharact~rizGdin the 'TRC EIR Thepl'opOSed project Would be
requIred to abide Wilhthe applicable envircmmentalplanS and poliCies of other agencies with regulatory .
authoriiy over environmental reso~rces. These i1genCiesmciudetheAir QualitY Management District,
Regional Water Quality Coritrol Boa.rd,iInd the State Water Resources Coritrof Board. . These issues
were addressed In the appropriate subctiapters of the EIR. The project must also prepare and submit a
Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources. Control Boa.rd and prepare a Stonn Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). .. .
T_~ee..
lnIIIaJ SUlyMB3106
TOM DODSON .& AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
In general, all projects in westem Riverside County are subject to the Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). However, the Temecula Regional Center site is completely disturbed,
paved, or in the process of development and contains no resources protected under the MSHCP.
The site is not within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission as it is not within the airport
influence area of any airport.
1c. ImDacts Remain the Same or Less Than Characterized in the TRC EIR. Prior to development of the
regional center, the site was used for dry-land farming and pasture and was considered prime farmland
and local important farmland. Therefore, the EIR considered development of the site potentially
. significant to agricultural resources. The site Is now completely disturbed with most of the site paved for
parking lots or covered with structures. As such, it 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.
1 d. Imlllicts Remain the Same or Less Than Characterized In the TRCEIR. The proposed project is in the
west-central part of the City. Surrounding uses include varying densities of residential uses, commercial
uses, industrial and office uses, and the 1-15 freeway. The proposed project Is within the approved
specific plan and would complete the implementation of the SpecifIC plan. The project would not divide
an established community. It would Implarnent 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 dMslon in the existing community.
1 e. ImDacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The.projecl slle is wiihin an
area developed wiih smile of uSes, inclUding the regional shopping facilities and high density residential
uses and Industrial uses. The development agreement and development proposed would complete the
implementation of land uses envisioned by the specifIC plan approved for the site. As a result, utilization
of the site would be ,optimized and would support the existing and proposed land uses in the project
area. Thus, it win not be incompatible with the existing land uses. .
The final phase of development of the T emecula Regional Center would b9 completed during operation
of the rarnalning portions of the. Regional Center and some disturbance of on-site traffic would occur.
However, no long-term land use incompabbility with. surrounding uses would result from project
implementation. Traffic impacts on the surrounding area during construction would be reduced through
implementation of a traffIC managarnent 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 implarnented Bas.ed on the analysis presented above, land use and planning Issues, .
. related specifICally to the proposed development agreement and buildout of the flOal phase of the T emecula .
Regional Center, remaln consistent with the approved specific plan and will not experience potentially
significant adverse impacts from project implementailon greater than those anticipated by the TRC Anal EIR.
All land use and planning issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts If the project Is
approved and implarnented. No land use mitigation Is required for this project. This finding Is consistentV/ith
:the data contained in the TRC Anal EIR. . .. .
T_ Aeglonal CenIer
....... SIufyIOlI3.08
TOM DoDSON & AssOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
Issues (and SUpporting ~ Sources);
..........
-
-
Potentially l8as thM
_ """'_ No
Unless MItIgated 11T1J8Ct Irrpact
2. ' PUBUC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental setvices in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (1,2,14,15)
b) Police protection? (1,2,14,15)
y
y
c) Schools? (1,14)
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 govemmental services? (1,14)
Substantiation:
y
, The general impacts related to pubflC services from development of the project as part of implementation of
the General Plan are forecast on pages V-93 through V"151 of the certified Temecula Regional Center EIR
(TRC EIR). The analysis of the regional center, including the proposed final development phase, concluded
that the project would not result in signifICant adverse Impacts to any public S91ViceS. 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 transltlon to a modem' urban/subuiban 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 Ii direct fee to a
, commercial operator. Others are funded collectivelyby the community residents through taxes or payment of
Development Impact Fees.
'2a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the Ti=lC EIR. ' The project site is served by the
R!"Eirslde County~re Department and CalifomiaDepartment of Fotestry on a contract basis with thej
City. 'FIve fire stations serve the T emeculaarea and are staffed by both paid and volunteer personnel. '
, The closest station to respond to emeigencies at the project site Is the statiOn located at 27415
Enterprise Circle West with back-up from the station at 28330 Merced8S Street. niese stations are
within a five minute response time Of, the project site.,
" '
. ... . .
This prdject site has been generally irK:Iuded in the ,City Fjre Pllltection MliSterPlan's, facility
improvements and staffing increa$es for Teniecuia It IS 110t expected that any new PnYsical facilltles for
, fire protection will be reqUired to serve the project ,
The project site is not within a Wildland Fire Protection Area,l.a., lin 'Identified special h8ZllJ'd arealliat
requires add'ltional services be aV8l1able from 'the California Department of Forestry. Mitigation was
required to address emergency management plans for the Temeeula Regional Center in the EIR.
These resulted in a less thlin significant Impact'in this area. "
T_ "-"" Ce<1ler
InIIIal __'06
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City 01 Temecula
Temecule Regional Center
INmAL 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 selVices and no additional mitigation is required beyond the
standard City code and design requirements.
2b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would be required
to meet the City lif 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 police services in
res.ponse to local traffic accidents.
The City contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for police services. The Sheriff's
. Department has a Southwest Station located at 30755-A Auld Road near the French Valley Airport. A
store-front station is located within the Temecula Regional Center at the Promenade Mali. The project
site also has other law enforcement services available from the California Highway Patrol. The
California Highway Patrol has jurisdiction along the Interstate 15 freeway. .
Mitigation was identified in the EIR to reduce impacts in this area. The proposed project is not forecast
to cause slgniflC8llt adverse impacts to police services and no additional mitigation is required for this .
project. .
2c. Imoacts Remain the Same or leSs than Characterized in the TRC EIR. The Temecula Unified School
District provides public elementary, junior high and high school education for the area surrol!nding the
project ,area. The proposed project would create no demand for school capacity as the proposed
development would be retall commercial development. No housing Is proposed as part of the final
phase of development. No school facilities would be displaced. No mitigation would b8 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 cflSplace any existing or known proposed recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.
2e. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would result in the
bulldout of art approved SpecifIC plan. The City has funding sources in place to maintain roadways and.
allocates malntenance funds on an annual basis from its general fund. The proposed project would pay
. for. and/or provide public road improVllll1llllts 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 .00 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 Il6less 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 comrnercial
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 adcfltionl'lJ mitigation is required. .
T_RogIonaI Center
InltiaJ~l06
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 nilated
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 theTRC Final EIR.
......(...._............ ........~
-ally
..........
_.
-..,. ..........
.......... _ No
....- - -
3. UTILmES 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 cflSpOsaJ? ((1,2,14,15)
y
y
y
y
e) Local or regional water treatment or
distnbution facilities? ((1,2,14,15)
f) Storm water drainage? ((1,2,14,15)
y
y
Substantiation:
. '. . .
The general Impacts related to utilities from development .ofthe project as part of implementation of the
Teme<:U1a Regional Center Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-93 through V.151 of the certified TAC Final
EIR (FEIR). TheanaJYsls of the FEIR concluded that no signiflCllllt adverse Impacta would affect any utilities.
However, cumulative Impacts Would remain significant. Stan.dai'd concfrtions and a few. mitigation measures
. were. Identified to address project specific pot~ adverse imPacts that were .ldentlfled In the analysis.
The proposed project may adversely Impact utilities In one of two ways:first, during constructionexlslingutility
lines may be affected by constRJctionand the lines relOCated, either within the exlsting alignment or along
another ilfignment; and second, over the Iong.term the project would utilize a partiCular utility service, such as
power consumption for street lights, orinilyaJter 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~ basis. below. .
The City of T emecula obtains utility services .from a variety of providers, ranging from pUlllic utilities (electricity,
natural gas and telephone) and public eriIitles providing water and sewer service. to the City and County which
r
T__CenIsr
. InI1IaI Studylll83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
CIIy of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL 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 tund 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 (OIF).
As discussed below, any disturbance and'or relocation of utility infrastructure would be coordinated with the
appropriate utility. .
3a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Southem Califomia 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 buildoutof 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 bulldout. 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. Impacts 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 tines 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. .
3<:. . Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized In the tRC EIR. Demand for wastewater services.would
result from the proposed projeel No septic systems would be used to serve this project. sewer
infrastructure is located within the project area and Wastewater would be treate\:! at Eastem MunlcipaJ
Water Oistlict=s T ernecula Valley WaStewater Reclamation Facility. Anysewer or InfrasfnJcture withlri
Iheproject area wOuld be protected or relocated during project implementation. No recycled water fines
exist within or near .ihe project area. Wastewater services impacts were ailalyzed in the FEIR. No
. signifICant changes to buildout wastewater demand \VOUld occur as a result of the propoSed .time
exlenslonof the devE!lopment agreement and construction and operation of the final phasE! of specific
plan. . .
3d. ImoactsRemairi the same as Characterized.in the TRC ErR. The pro~ project Will. generate
dElmand for solid waste service system capaQity during construction and oj:ief'ation. The buildout
impacts of thE! proposed project on solid wastE! setvic9s were analyzed within the TAC ElR and found to
be lE!sS than significant applying slandard COnditions and with mitigation Incorporated. Solid wastE!
T_RegIonaJ CenIo<
fnItiaJ S1udy/QI3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ot Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
capacity in area landfills, particularly the EI Sobrante Landfill, has been expanded to provide adequate
disposal capacity for cumulative demand. EI Sobrante has more than 20 years of capacity available and
licensed at this time. Combined with 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 EIA. The proposed project is located within the
boundaries of Rancho Califomia Water District (RCWD). The prpposed 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 reclaimedfrecycled water infrastructure if .applicable and
installing water saving fixtures and irrigation systems. With implementation of mitigation measures,
impacts to water were considered less than significant. Water lines are available at the site arid 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.
3f. Imoacts Remain the Same as CharaCterized In the TRC EIA. Drainage improvements connecting the
final phase of the specific plan to the master drainage plan on-site and to. the existing region-wide flood
confroVstor,n runoff drainage system would be constructed as plirt of the proposed project and as
analyzed in the EIA. Please refer to a detailed discussion of this issue in Section 6, Water. The
proposed project would comply with all JRiverside County Conservation and f7l00d Control District
regulations including provision for no net Increase In incremental discharge volumes from the site and
for water quality requirements. Note that since the project area being converted for the final phase is
already paved, no increase in storm water runoff will result from completing this phase of the project.
Onsite runoff will be detained in accordarice 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 flIr
the storm water drainage system if the project is implemented as proposed.
Conclusion
.1'I1a proposed project Is the extension of.the extsting development.agreement during Whichthe final phase of
. development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above utility issues related speclflCallyto
the proposed project and incorporation of mitigation in the EIR. there would 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
TAC Final EIA. .
-.
T......._Cer<er
IritIaI S1udy.Ql3106
TOM DoOSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecufa Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting InIom1atkln Soun:es):
-"Iy
-
"-
PotentiaUy Less than
SlgnlficanI SViflcant No
Unless Mtigated ~ IJ11)8Ct
4. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1,2, 14)
y
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (1.2,14) .
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (1,2,14)
y
y
Substantiation:
.
The general and indirect impacts related to population and housing is forecast on pages V-9 to V-11 and V-
152 to V-154 and throughout the certified Temecula Regional Center EIR.
4a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the IRC EIR. The proposed project is the time
extension of a development agreement and the subsequent completion of the final phase of specific
plan development and will not provide housing or lead to a 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 allowfor 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 tiuiidout 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 emecula
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 signlflc8nt
extension of utilities and serviCes will be required as part of the projeel Existing utiltties located on site
may be relocated as part of the project to accommodilte the final phase of development. The needs of
existing and projected population for retail commercial services as anticipated by the General Plan will
be partially fulfilled by completing the final phase of.the Temecula RegiOnal Center. As it serves existing
and planned needs, the proposed project has no possibUity of induclrig substantial growth within the City
or project area in general '.
4c.lmoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. There are no residences within thEi
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 reslclentialuses.
'ConcIusion .
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, population and housing issues. .
/ . related specifically to the proposed projeel will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from
project implementaticn. All population and housing issues are forecast to experience less than signific;ll1l
T__CenIer
...... S1udyAl83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
,
. City 01 Temecula
T emecula 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.
-.or P_ally .........
Sl...._ Sl_ - ...
Issues (and Supporting information Sources): """'" lInIes9M1l1gated """'" """'"
5. TRANSPORTATIONfCIRCULATION. 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 intersectlons), .
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) or
barriers for pedestrlans 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
alternative trensportation (e.g. bus tumouts,
bicycle racks)? (1,2,14)
f) Air or raU 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 asa 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 bulldout of the General Plan, which Include the anticipated buUdout of the Temecula .
Regional Center Specific Plan, are also evaluated in the recent General Plan FEIS. Several Intersections and
freeway ramps are .forecasno 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
.AIi1endli1entto extend th9.term of the T emecula Regional Center Development Agreement an additiotial three
years to provide for the future development of the remaining square footage allowed under thf;! final phase of .
the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
sa. lmoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The City of Temecuiahas identifiEid the
minimum level of service (LOS) as '0' for City intersections not adjaeent to the Ihterstate freeways and
. LOS 'E' for intersectlons and ramps adjacent to freeways. As described above, the proposed project .
T_ RoglonaI C<<Ur
InI6al Slud\OOB3106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
will generate traffic. However, the traffic generated by the final phase of Specific Plan development was
anticipated by the TAC EIA and mitigation measures were included in the EIA to reduce traffic impacts
to less than significant levels. However, the TAC EIA also identifies potentially significantcumulative
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 EIA 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 TAC EIA and recently validated in the
General Plan EIA.
.5b. Imoacts Aemain the Same as Characterized in the TAC EIA. New road improvements were proposed
and iinplemented as part of the first phases of Aeglonal Center development. Any design proposed for
road improvements or parking facuities will meet the City's design standards that are deemed to be
sufficient so as to create no trafflc flow hazards. Based on the approved Specific Plan and EIA the
proposed project is not forecast to pose significant h818rds to pedestrians. bicyclists, or motor vehicles.
.5c. Imoacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TAC EIA. During construction adequate
emergency access and control must be accomplished by implementing a trafflc management plan to
ensure safe. albeit, slower traffic flow on the adjacent streets and within the Aegional Center. The EIA
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 haz8rds to safety from
design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections). incompallble uSes (e.g. farm equipment)
or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists do not occur. Implementation of these standards is sufficient to
ensure that emergency access constraints and hazards created by construction activities are controlled
to a less than significant impact level.
Sd. Imoacts Aemaln the Same as Characterized in the TAC EIR. The existing specific plan and City of
Temecula zoning ordin;mcelnclude requirements for adequate parking capacity. With bulldout 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.
56. Imoacts Aemaln the Same as Characterized in theTAC EIA. The design of the proposed project would
not be in conflict with policies supporting altemative transportation. Mitigation measures are Included In
the EIR to encourage alternative modes of transportation. ifICluding public transportation. as they have
the potential to ease general traffic congestion In the area.
5f.lmoacts Aemain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The proj8et 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 FI'enCI1 Valley Airport Or any other airport.
Conclusion
ThEi proposed project is the extension !If 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 ;ue not forecast to experience significant adverse
..impacts from project Implementation. All trafflc f1!1W issues related to the proposed project are forecast to
experief1C6 less than signlflC8l1t impacts If the project is approved and implemented.
,
./ .
T........ -... CelUM
InItIat S1udy/Q83106
TOM DODSON 8. AssoCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
........ally
..........
.......
Potentially L..ossthan
SIgnificant S1~ No
""""" ......... ....... .......
Issues (and SupportIng Infonnation'Soun::es):
6. WATER. Would the proposal resuH in:
Substantiation:
a)
y
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
pattems, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff? (1,2,14)
J:xposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding and
Inundation? (1,2,14)
Discharge into surface waters, or in other
atteration of surface water quality, (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(1.2,14)
b)
y
c)
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)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, etther
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations? (1,2,14)
Attered direction or rate of flow of ground
waters? (1,2,14)
Impacts to ground water quality? (1,2,14)
y
I)
y
0)
y
h)
y
. . .
. . .
. .
. The general impacts related to Yiater issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the
SpecifIC Plan are forei;ast on'pages V-26 to V-30, V-56 to V-58, and V-118 to V-123 of the certified TRC FmaI
EIR (FEIR). No significant adverse impacts to the area dralnage system and water quality would resutt from
. the proposed project implementation. However. cumulative impacts to regional flood facilities ware.
considered potentially signifICant Several mitigation measures Were identified to address the project site
hydrology and water quality impacts, Including measures. to coritrol future runoff and to install required
liralnage system improvements for the prOject.... .
6a,d
&e;
. .
Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Implementation of the Specific PlllnwaS
anticipated to reSuttin changes to absorption rates .and the amount of runoff from the project alie. An
engineering report (See Volume II of thEiSPJEIR), and drainage study were used to analyze iinpactsof
. runoff fromttie implementation of. iheSpecific Plan in the certified EIR. The project site is presently
develOped wtth impervious surfaces, asphalt and concrete. Therefore, subsequent construction of the
final phase of Specific Plan implementation would not resuit in an increase In impervious surfaces. The
proposed project has been designed to accommOdatEi the stonn water flows an4 these flows will be
directed to on-site drainage facilities. The. stonn runoff will be discharged Into the existing offcsitE!
T........._ee.-
InIIlaJ S1udyi083t06 .
TOM DQDSON & AssocIATES
City 01 Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
system of man-made channels at a comparable volume to the existing volume of runoff. The flows will
be delivered to the regional drainage system, which includes soft-bottom channels, such as Murrieta
Creek, that facilitate water recharge into the ground water basins. With implementation of mitigation
listed in the EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse changes in the local
existing drainage pattem and absorption rates within the area. No additional mitigation beyond those
measures already identified in the EIR is required.
6b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. 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 significant flood hazards.
As described In the analysis of 6.a above, the proposed project will be required to convey stonn 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 EIA. Further, the
project site is not subject to significant flood hazards from seiche, or tsunami.
6c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project encompasses.
activities that would typICally generate some urban non-polnt source poliotion. 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 (motoroll,
antifreeze, etc.) could be introduced into downstream waters from the proposed roadways. However,
!he 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 Stonnwater Management Program is
tiUed: '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 CO/lStructIon (Stonn Water Pollution'.
Prevention Plan, SWPPP) and over the long-tl"nn (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 TAC EIR; The project is in an area, where depth to
ground ~ter has been measured from 20 to 45 feet below the surface dep8nding on seasonal
precipitation and other factors. However, the potential to lntell)ept ground water during grading and .
.constructlon is essentially zero. Any grading would associated with the proposed project Would beillss
than 20 feet below !he surface. The propOsed project Is not subject to the requirements of 5anaieBills
221 and 610 becausethe.final phase of development Improvements do not have a water demanc;r'
. equlvalentto or greater than the amount of water required for a 500 dwelling unit project (approximately
2~ 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 becayse the proposed project will not deliver signlficanUy contaminated water to the ground
r...- RegIonal Center
1_~106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCfATES
City of T emecula
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 related specifically to the
proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project Implementation. All
water issues are forecast to experience less than slgniflCa/lt 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 a~ieve 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 data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
-Issues (and SUppotting lnfocmatIon SouaI):
-.
..........
-
-. ..........
Sl_ .......... 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
communltles (e.g. heritage trees, oak forests,
etc.)? (1,2,14,15)) .
y
c) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vemal pools)? (1; 2.,14,15)
d) Wildlife dlspelllal <<migration corridors,
(including, but notlimited to Murrieta Creek,
Warm Spring$ creek and Cole Creek)?
(1,2,14,15) ..
y
y
SubStantiation:
. . .
.. ."
. ..
The general impacts relat8d to biological resources from developtnent of the project as part of implementation
of the Temecula Regional Center Specffic Plan are forecast on pagesV-77 thr9ugh V-83 of the certified TRC
Final EIR (FEIR). Several general mitigation measures were identified to add~ss the project site biology
. resource Impacts. TheEIRconcludlll:l 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
..
;
T_ RedionaJ CenIer
initial SIudy/l)8311l6
TOM DoDSON 8. 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
TRG 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 location. No additional
biological impacts would occur from project implementation than were analyzed in the TRG 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.
7b.
7a. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRG EIR. The vegetation on the site was
categqrized as introduced, or non-native, grassland and the site used as foraging habitat for raptors.
However, the site is currently completely d"JSturbed 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 eallier phases of the Specific Plan as anticipated by the TRG EIR.
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.
Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized In the TRC EIR. No riparian habitat, vemal pools,
wetlands, or jurisdictional waters were found on site. The site was used for dryIand farming and was
highly disturbed at the tlme of the EIR analysis. Since the site is fully developed with urban uses, no
potential exists to adversely impact any weUands.
,
Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRG 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 m~entcorridor. The project site is not located
withlnwildilfe dispersal or mlgraUOTl/movement corridor and the lack of habitat resources Indicate that
. the proposed project does not serve as a movement corridor. .
Conclusion
7d.
. ." .
The proposed project is the extension of theexisliilg development agreement duringwllich the fmal 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
. .' .
T__CenIor
InIUaI SludyM83106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
signnicant impacts though cumulative impacts from area-wide development remain signiflCllnt. This finding is
. consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and SupportIng Information Sources):
-
-
...-
........... .........
Sl_ _ No
Unless Mitigated Il'l1)8Cl kr1*t
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (1. 2, 14)
y
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner? (1,2.14)
y
.Substantiation:
The general impacts related to energy resources issues from development of the project as part of
implementation of the T emecula 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 signnicant.
Sa. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The project would not conflict with any
knmyn energy or non-renewable resource conservation plans. The proposed project is part of the
Implementation of an approved Speclflc Plan. Energy reso.urces were identified in theEIA as being
adequate to meet the needs for the Speclfic Plan bulldout. 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 TAC EIR. The EIA did not specnie8Jly discuss minerai
resources impacts of the T emecula Regional Center as the County had found minerai resources
impacts to be less than significant in their previous Environmental Assessmentfor 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 buiklout of the fmal phase of the Specnic
Plan would have no greater impact than the buildout of the Specific Plan as a whole and would be
included as contributing part of the Impact of the whole project. The use of resources to complete a
. regional shopping center and provide services to the community as envisioned in the Specific Plan and
General Plan would not ~ 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. .
qonCIiJslon
c'
.
T__CenIer
I.- 51ullYios3'06
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
mineral resource mnigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the
TRC Final EIR.
Issues (and SUpporting lnIonnation Souroe8):
p-,
--
.."...
Potentially Less than
Significant Significant No
Unless Mitigated ~ ~
9. CULTURAL 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 potential impact 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 forecast on pages V-89through 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 identilied to address the project sne
cultunll resource impacts. Archaeological and Paleontological Assessments were performed on the sne as
part of the environmental analysis in the Certified EIR for the TRC, These studies are provided as part of the
Em, 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 sne and
that fossil remains and fossil sites ixluld be adversely affected by activities necessary to implement the
Speclfic Plan project. In order to reduce this impact to lliss than signifICant, mitigation mEl<lSures
Oncluding monitoring) were included In the EIR to be implemented during ground disturbance. The sne
has since been disturbed and almost completely developed. Implementation of the final phase of
cOnstnJctionon the sne would not involve grading to a depth where paleontologic resources are likely to .
~r. However, application of the existing mltigationmeasures would ensure the. impacts to
paleontologic resources remain less thansigniflC8nt.
9b. .Imoacts Remain the Same as CharaCterized in the TRC EIR. The archaeological assessment
concluded that no an:haeological resources EIi'e likely to exist on the project site. Amltigation measure
was included which requires thalshould in the event .that any cultural resources are encciuntered during .
. grading or construction activitNls. work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area and a qualified
. archaeologist shali 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. .
T......... -... Center
.- StudylO83106
TOM DODsON & AssOCIATES
City 01 Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
9c. Imoacts 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project site is not known to
have any unique ethnic cuttural 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. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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 extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the cuttural
resource mitigation measures in the EIR, cuttural resource issues are not forecast to experience significant
adverse impaCts from project implementation.. Based on the analysis presented above, cuttural resource
issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse Impacts
from project Implementation. All cuttural resource issues are forecast to experience less than significant
impacts If the projectIs approved and Implemented. No newcuttural resource mitigation measures are
required for this project. This finding Is consistent with the dilta contained In the TRC Final EIR.
.......1...._ ___.......~
.-
..........
-
-
Sl_
....-
.... ....
.......... No
- -
10. RECREATION. WouldthepropOsa/:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
. (1,2,14)
y
. b) Affect existing recrealional opportunities?
(1,2,14) .
Substantiation:
y
. .
. '
, ,
. .. . .
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 (FEIRI. Please refer to the discussion regarding parks and recreation in Section 2 of this document.
'The analysis of the Specific Plan, Including the final phase, concluded thaI no !llgniflC8nt adverse impaCts to
recreational resources would result from the proposed project ,implementation.
. .. - .
.108. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRCEIR.The proposed project is a
CO,inmerclal 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 atthis
time. Therefore, the impacts of, Specific Plan buildout In this issue area are less than 'what' was
'T_Rog/of1al~
_ S'udyi\l8:l106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
forecast at the time of Specific Plan EIR certification and approval. No demand for recreation or
parks would result from the implementation of the proposed project.
lOb. ImDacts 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 agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, recreation issues related
. specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project
implementation. Recreation i!lsues 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_k1formaliGo_l,
-.
.....-.
........
_ less lhan
........... Si_ 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)
Substantiation:
y
y
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-l48 through V- 149, and ofthe certified TRC
Rnal EIR (FEIR). The analysi!l of the SpecifiC Plan, Including the final phase, concluded that no signlflC8/1t
adverse Impacts to aesthetic values would result from the propo!led project Implementation. Several
mitigation mea!lures were identified to addre!l!l the project site aesthetic impacts related to light and glare.
. .
11 a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized In the TRC EIR. The propQ!le<f project is !lei In the west-
. . central area of T emecula Which hall. been characterlzedby rolling hill!l with vieW!! of !lurrounding
hill!lides and larger mountain!lln all direction!l. The area h8!l become urbanized and ill developed
with a mix ofusesbut dominated by commercial uses. The propo!led project is adjacentto Highway
79, Which is designated a 'Eligible County Scenic Highway' . The EIR determined that the project
would have no significant adverse aesthetic impacts on this highway. ..
TheprOpo!led project, would not Impact undeveioped hillsides and ridgelines would still be visibl~ in .
the area after the projeClsitels deVeloped; The site is adjacent to 1~15. but due to the level of
development In the proJect area; the visUal settllig is not considered asignlflC8/1t scenic resource.
Adverse aesthetic impacts to scenic resources from development of the. site would be less thim
signlflC8/1t with Implementation of existing City Design Standards and Design Guidelines in the
Specific Plan. These standards Include design criteria that enhance the ae!lthetlCs of a project and
. require design and site layout that are compatible with .the surrounding area. The project will be
required to meetJhe City public works standards and any roadway improvements would be improved
to General Plan and SpecIfIC Plan specifications.
Temecuta RegIonaJ Center
_~I06
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
CiIy of Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
11 b. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would extend the
timeline of a Development Agreement to provide for the development of the final phase of a Specific
Plan. The final phase would complete the core area of an existing regional shopping mall. The
surrounding area is dominated by commercial uses with some office, industrial, and residential uses.
With implementation of General Plan and Specific Plan development standards and design criteria
the impacts of the proposed project would be consistent with the impacts analyzed in the certified EIR
for the Specific Plan. Improvements would also be required to meet the city public works standards.
Any negative effects to aesthetics would be less than signifICant.
11c. Imoacts 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 ErR, aesthetic issues are not fo~t to experience significant adverse
impacts from project implementation. Based oil the analysis presented above, aesthetic Issues related
spaciflCally to the proposed Development Agreement and final phase of Specific Plan development will not
experience potentially significant adverse impacts froni project implementation. All aesthetic Issues are
forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No new
aesthetic mitigation measures are required for this project. - .This finding is consistent with the data contained in
the TRC Final EIR.
.T__CenIeJ
1nIlIaI~106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
Temecula Regional Center INmAL STUDY
Potentially -" Less_
-- Si_ Si_ No
Issues (and SUpporting lnIormaIion SouIC8l): "- .......- "- "-
12. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (1, 2,14) y
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? (1, 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
soli conditions from excavation, grading or
fill?(1,2,14)
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 .Speclflc Plan implementation.
. Several mitigation measures were identified to address the project site geology and soil resource impacts. A
geotechnical report of the site was p~pared as part of the envlronmental analysis in the certified EtR for the
Specific Plan. This study is provided as part of the EIR, Volume III.
. The proposed project Is located in a seismically active area as is all of southem California. The Elsinore fault
. and Murrieta Hot ~prlngs fault are IQcaled within one mile of the project site. However, no aclivefault traces
. or faults have beenfoun<! within the project site. It Is estimated that an earthquake of magnitude 7JJ on the
. Richter scale could occur on the neartJy Bsinore fault segment Significant earthquakes .have occurred on
faults n~r the site. A total of 13,1 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater have occurred within 100 miles of
.the site smce 1932. ..
1211.. . ImDacts Remain the Sarne as Characterized in the TRC ErR. The site Is not located within a State of
California Fault-Hazard Zone for active faulting and no active fliult traces or faults have been found on
the project site. Ground rupture normally occurs along pre-existingfaults. As there are no active
faults on the project site, the ground rupture potential Is projected to be low to non-existent. .
.
T_ Regional CenIsr
_ Sludy/0831\l6
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 ttie EIR ensure that the final phase of Specific
Plan will be constructed to meet City design standards.
12b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC 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- T emecula 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 th.e 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. .
Sites 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 liquefacticn. However, the impactln this issue area would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation Incorporated from the EIR and would be no greater thatipreviously
analyzed.
12c. .'moocts 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 nearoy 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 Saine 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 forlandsliding andlor mudslides is considered less than significant.
12e. linoacts Remain theSarne as CharacteriZed In theTRCEIR. 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 mitlgatlonto c;ontrcil the potential significant erosion
hazards.. The topography has been changed to accommodate develOpment of earlier phases of.
SpecifIC Plan implementation arid has been graded to avoid erosion. Erosion of the onsite soils is a
potential impact during excavation, grading. fill and compacting operations. Ho\vever. if gracflflg does
occur as part of the project inIplementation, compliance with City and County standards can ensure
. that the potential forsigniflC8l1t erosion will be contrcilled on the project site and.be less than
significant. In addition. because the area of impact Is greater than one acre. the final phase otihe
Specific Plan must be developed meetingcu~t water quality requirements.lncludinlj'the filing of a
Notice of Intentand irripleinentatlon of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)and Water
. Quality Management PlanCWQMP). Since this is a mandatO!}' requirement, no additional mitlgationis
required to contrcil potential water quality impacts to a less than .$IQnificant impact level.
. .
. .
. 121. Imoocts Remain the Same as CharacteriZed In the TRC EIR.. The soils on the site are susceptible to
settlernentfrom intense ground shaklng caused by seismic activity. However,implementatlon of
T__Centor
lntiat S1udy/0831Cl6
TOM DODSOtt & AsSOCIATES
Cily of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
IN mAL STUDY
mitigation included in the EIR would reduce the level of significance in this issue area to less than
significant.
12g. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project has soils with .
generally low expansion potential. Therefore, impacts of expansive soils would be less than
significant. If expansive soils are found on site, the City would require soil preparation methods be
used to ensure that impacts in this area remain less than significant.
12h. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The 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 soil issues are not
for9C!ist to experience signifICant adverse impacts from. project Implementation. Based on the analysis
presented above, geology and soil Issues related speciflClllly 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 theSpe<:ific Plan are approved and implemented. No new geology and soil mitigation measures are
required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
.......(..._-......"..* .
-
-
"-
_ Lou....
- _No
..........- - "-
13, HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
.1Itnited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? (1,2,14) .
Y
>
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
. plan?(1, 2,14)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (1, 2,14)
d). Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (1,2,14) .
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with tiammable
brush,grass, or irees? (1,2,14)
SubSt8nt/ation:
y
y
y
y
. . '. . .
. . .
. .
The general impacts related to hazard iSsues from development of the project as part of implementaJion of the
SpecifIC Plan are forecast on pages V-S9through V- 62 and generally throughout the certified TRC Final EIR
(FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan,iricluding th~ final phase o! development, implies that no significant
. adverse impacts to hazard issues would result from the proposed project. Several mitigation measures were
Temoa.da"-,,,CenIef .
_SludyIll83106
TOM DODSON & AssOCIATES
City of Temecula
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. Imoacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIR. During construction there is a
potential for accidental release of petroleum products in sufficient quantity to pose a significant hazard
to people and the environment. The City requires compliance with Best Management Practices to
manage clean-up of potential spills of hazardous materials during construction. The City also requires
all spills or leakage of petroleum and other products during construction activities will be remediated in
compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the
contaminant released. The SWPPP would also contain sufficient measures to address accidental spills.
Though the risk of accidents would not be eliminated, it would be controlled to a less than significant
level by implementing the standard City policies. No additional mitigation is required to assure an
accidental spill will not result in significant water quality impacts.
13b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Charecterized 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 lime 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 confonn to all City police, fire and public works standards. .
130. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Building construction can be associated
with some hazardous materials that, if misused or spilled,may cause a health hazard to those nearby.
HSzardousmaterials can also be discovered during greding. anellor other earthmoving activities. The
Gity 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 il1ilpacts of this issue to
. less than signiflClll1t. 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 Charecterized In the TRG 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. <flSlribution . lines. sewer lines, electrical lines, natural gas lines,
. cablefacilitles and potentially Verizon lines. Controlling construction activities .as required in the
following mitigatioil measure, the potential Impact to the utility lines is considered less than significant.
Also see Section 3 of this document.
The Preliminary Environmental Property Invesligationfound 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 iisk of exposure of people to existing health hazards would be considered
less thllll signiflClll1t wilh the mitigation in the EIR incorporated. .
. 136. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterlzed in the TRG EiR. The project site is not located within a
Wildland RreProteclion Ag"*,menIAr~.I.e.. an Identified special hazar:d areathatrequiresadd'lIlonal
servlcilS be avai~1e from the caJifonila Departnientof Forestry. During project cOristructklll. City
pi"ocedures will be followed so that ali"risks of accidental fire lire reduced to less thanslgniflcant.
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 presenledabove, and implementation of the
referenced hazard mitillalion measures in the EIR, hazard issues are not forecast to experience significant
T__Center
1_ Study_lOG
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City 01 Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL 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 TAC Final EIR.
Issues (and SUpporting Information Soun::es):
-oily
Sl_
-
PoI:entI..y leas than
.......... Sl_ No
Unless MtigaIed Inpact ~
14. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,14)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? "
(1,2,14)
y
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-31through V- 46 of the certified TAC Final EIA (FEIA). 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-tenn
project'noise impacts and,standard condilionsfor contrl)Iling construction noise. A Noise Assessment was
prepared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EIA for the TAC. This study is provided as part
of the EIA, Volume III. '
148. Imoacts Aemain the Same as Characterized in the TAC EIR. Construction of the proposed project
would increase noise levels in the area and is considered a short-tenn impact to ambient noise leVels.
Noise generated by equipment can reach high episodic levels, but these episodes are of relatively ,
short duration and typically restricted to day right 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 pennits.
Some standard polictes include limiting the hours of constnJction activity, and requiring a construction-
related noise mitigation plan for projects adjacenUo sensitive receptors. The EIA also Identifies a
,mitigation measure to address constnuclionnoise and several to address construction techniques to
, ',' reduce interior and exterior nOlseimpacls. Given the location of the final phase within the Mall, the
potenlilil for significant noise impacts on sensitive receptors is considered very low.
As construction noise impacts are ofrelaliliely short and temporary duration, incorporation of these
, mitigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts to lesS than significant.
The EIAconcll;Jdedthat cumu!Btive noise levels in the area of the project are considered signifJC<U1t
andadvel'SEland qannot be liiitigated to a level of less thanslgilificant. The Specific Plan would
'contnbute no significant statiOnary noise effects to off-site due to project implementation, but the
, noise levels in thesurroundiilg area will continue to iricre,ase due to traffic. The noise increases are
,due to regional growth and Iocatlon next to a majotnorlh-soulh transportation corridor. The Specific
Plan itself wiil contributeiittle and insignificantly to ultimate noise levels. '
, ,
, ,
No changes in coriditions or theresuits of the analysis would occur as,aresult of developing the final'
phase oUhe Specific Plan analyzed in the TAC EIA. ' '
T_RegiOnaree_
_~106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
14b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. None of the activities associated with
the proposed project, either during constrUction or during operation of the completed Specific Plan is
forecast to generate severe noise levels. However, in order to ensure that exposure of people to
severe noise levels is reduced to a less than significant level, implementation of the construction
noise mitigation measure and standard city procedures is. recommended. No routine aircraft
overflights or airport operations Occur within the project area. With implementation of the mitigation
measures listed in the EIR and compliance with the City of Temecula Municipal Code and policies,
potential severe noise impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The 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.
_(and""""'" ......-..........~
-
Sl_
-
-
-
....-
.... ....
_cant No
- -
15. AIR QUAUTY. 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) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature.
or cause any change In climate?
(1,2,14)
d) .Create Ol;Jjectionable odors?
(1,2,14)
y
y
Substantiation:
. .
. The general impacts related to air quality issuesfromdevelopmentoittieprojecl as part of Implementation of .
.the Specific Plan are. forecast on pages V-47 through V-55Qf ~ certified TAG Final EIR (FEIR). The analYsis
.of the SpecifIC Plan, including the final phase of development for the SpecificPlai1; concluded that Air Quality
impacts were potentially significant and would not be reduced tq less than significant even with mitigation.
Mitigation measures were identified to address short-tenn project bortstructioi1 air quality impacts, but Impacts
were still considered significant.
r
T_RegicxJaJCet1Ior
.ldtialStudyM83106 .
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
15a
&b. Imaacts 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 operation even with
mnigation. 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 a jobslhousing
standpoint and due to reduced vehicle miles traveled for local residents seeking Mall retail facilities, are
consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan presently in place.
15.c Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project does not include
uses or encompass a large enough project to cause significant changes in area climate. No impact was
identified and no mitigation was required.
15.d Imoacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIR The EIR did not evaluate the potential
for significant odor generation or exposure. During construction, the proposed project includes
operations that will have olesel odors associated with equipment and materials. None of these odors
are permanent, nor are they normally considered so offensive as to cause sensitive receptors to
complain. Diesel fuel odors from construction equipment and new 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.
COnclusion
The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of
development will be Implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the
. , . referenced air quality standard conditions and mitigation measures in the EIR, air quality issues are forecast to
experience significant advarse 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
EI~. No new mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistei1t with the data contained in the
TRCFlnal EIR. ..
,T........ RegIonaJ CenIo<
initial Study_l06
.TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
Cilyof Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and SUpporting 1nf0lTl'llti0n Soutcesl:
-oily
Sl_
.......
Potentially less than
Significant SlgnIIIcant No
Unless MtIgated ~ In1*I
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 Califomia history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
y
y
c) Does the project have impacts which are
Individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the Incremental effeqts 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.)
Q) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or Indirectly?
y
y
Substantiation:
The proposed project consists of a proposed ~velopment Agreement Amendment to extend thelermof the
Temecula Regional Center Development Agrilement an additional three years to provide for the future
development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of.the approved Temecula
Regional Center SpecifIC Plan. The project is part of the City of Temecula SpecifIC Plan No. 263. The
construction and operation of this proposed projeqt has been evaluated as having no potentially significant
. effects that are signifICantly greater than thilse analyzed in the EIR and that would not be reduced to lesS than
significant level with mitigation Incorporated from the SpecifIC Plan EIR.ln addition, changes in circumstances
for issues such as biological resources (MSHCP), water quaflty.(SWPPP and WQMPjand air quality (better
teQ.lonal. air. quality) do not result in add"rtionaIsigniflCant adveise impact that requires new mitigation .
. measures. The following text summarizespotentiallmpaC/s and recommendations. . .
/
. . - .
. .
. . .
168: . Potentially significant environmentailmpac::ls associated with the pl'opQSed project have been identified
in the areas of biological and cultural resources for the SpeCific Plan in the Specilic Plan EIR. . However,
based on technical studies for these issues, all but cumulative Iml'\acts 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 In!lial Study. With mitigation, all blologlealand cultural resources impacts were
reduced to a less than significant level, except for cuinulatlve impacts. . No further analysis of these two
T_ RsgionaI c....,.
. InItloI Study.1l83106
TOM DODSON & AssOCIATES
~.,,-- -
(I
City 01 T emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INmAL 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
will be implemented to ensure that they remain the same as those evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR.
l6b
&c. Potentially significant long-term and cumulative impacts of the proposed project as part of the Specific
Plan were analyzed in the EIR and were associated with the following. areas: transportation/circulation,
air quality, seismic safety, agricultural lands, noise, circulation, wildllfelvegetation, flood/drainage, public .
facilities, and utirlties. 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, circl,llation, seismic safety, floodfdrainage, public facilities, utilities and noise Impacts
associated with the SpecifIC Plan, and this the fUlal phase of development, would resuit In exposure of
humans to substantial adverSe impacts due to the cumulative impacts of generai growth in the area that
cannot be mitigated to a level of non-significance. No further analysis of these human linpact issue
areas is required and the findings of this Initial Study are consistent with the findings in the certified TAC
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 T emecula 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 standard conditions of approval when the final phase of the Specific Plan is
Implemented. The analysis 1nd'lC8tes that no new signifICant effects will be caused by inctuding this
modiflcallon to the overail project analyzed in the EIR. The impaCtS will remafn relatively the same as . .
. analyzed In the EIR.
Eiecause no new mitigation measures have been Identified and required for the proposed project to ensure no
sign/licant impacts will reSult from itS Implementation, the City can issue an Addendum to the certified TRC
ElR lIl!. the approprlateGeQA environmental detennination. Neither a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR nOr a
Negative Declaration is required to comply with CEOA for this project. The City will ac\opt an Addllridum to the
EIR for the proposed project. The City CoUnCil will consider adoption of an Addendum to the certified
. Temecula ReQional Genter EIR to consider In conjurictlon with a decision on whether to proceed with the
. Development Agreement amendment and final phase of th.e Specific Plan asdescnbed in this document.
.~
T_ RegIonal Cenfo<
..- S1udyJ083108
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES.
CiIyof Temecula
Tem8cula Regional Center
INmAL S.TUDY
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 ifs 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 within an area that is completely paved. .
18. EARUER ANALYSES.
A previous CEOA analysis of the site for the proposed project includes the .EIR for the T emecula 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 TRCEIR.
..
.'
T_ RegIonal CenIw
.1nIIlaJ Stull)oWl106
TOM DODSON & AssocIATES
City of Temecula
Temecula Regional Center
IN mAL STUDY
FIGURES
"\
T__Center
..... Sludy.oo3106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Cenler
INITIAL. StUDY.
Data use ..qect ID Icense.
l!l2004 lleLorme. X1Aap!!14 5.
WNW.deIolJTle.com
1
MN(12.7'EI
. TemocuIa RegIonaJ ee.-
Initial SIudy_'06
XMopfil4.5
.~m1
024 6 8 ro
Data Zoom l>l)
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
1
MN (12.7" E)
~'.
o 8JJ 1600 2<<D 320) GX)
Data ZJ;Iom 13-0
DaIa use ..qect to license.
. t!l2l104 Del.orme.lCIotapl!I4S.
Vi/ININ.deIorme.com
T........ RllgIoni.l Ce<1IG<
InIlIaI S1udyJ\l83106.
TOM DoDSON & AssocIATES
ATTACHMENT NO.6
EIR ADDENDUM
.G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-G154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash Issues
exp.doc .
14
ADDENDUM TO THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This document is an Addendum to the Temecula Regional Center Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR"). Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines
section 15164(a) (14 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
I of the final phase of retail commercial space and parking facilities within the Temecula Regional
. Center core commercial area in an area. The proposed project would be developed within
Planning Area 2 of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 263) and would be located
primarily between the current Macy's department store and Edwards Cinema and also on the
north side of the Edwards Cinema within the current core shopping area. The existing RegiOnal
Center currently has 2,117,545 square feet of existing and approved development. The approved
Specific. Plan for the Temecula Regional Center allows up to 2,483,000 square feet of
development. The extension of the Development Agreement would continue the agreement with
the City under which the development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final
phase of the Specific Plan would be implemented.
In 1993 the City of Temecula certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
construction arid occupancy of a new regional retail center, business and office center, and hotel
. and residential area, entitled the . ''Temecula Regional Center EIR". The EIR addressed the
construction and operation of all allowed uses and intensities of uses for the proposed regional
center.
. The current Development Agreement, adopted in December 1996, sets forth the
obligations of the developer and the City in order for dCvelopment to be consistent with the
adopted Specific Plan. Under the proposed Development Agreement, the final p~ 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
. eonsistel1t 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, Temei:u1a Towne Cetiter Associates, LoP., and the City to complete the Specific
. Plan process. . -
Legal Standard
. -' . .
As noted above, an addendum should include a brief explanation of the lead agency's
decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR. A lead agency may only require the preparation of a .
915441.1 August 30, 2006
1
subsequent or supplemental Em under very narrow circumstances. . Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines states:
"a) When an Em has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent Em 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 Em 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 Em 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 Em was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted,
shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effectsnol discussed in the
previous Em or Negative Declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous Em; .
(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 Em . 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 supplenient to an Em in the following
circumstances: '
"(a). The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a suppleinent to an Em rather
than a subsequent Em if; .
915441.1 Augusl30, 2006
2
(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,
. . QJItural 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 EIR.
The Initial Study also analyzed whether new circumstances would result in new
significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Initial Study
found that no new circumstances exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the
severity of previously identified significant effects. .
"
. Further, the Initial Study analyzed whether new information exists that indicates that the
projeCt. would 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 mitigaqon measures or
suggest that mitigation measl11'e8 previously identified as infeasible were in fact feasible. . .
. " . .
. Because the Initial Study finds no new significant effeCts, no increase in the severity of
previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change in the mitigation
measures previously discusSed, the City finds that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be
prepared, and that the. City may rely on this Addendum to approve the proposed extension to' the
Development Agreement.
915441..1 August 30, 2006
3
ATTACHMENT NO.7
CONFORMED COPY OF NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR EIR ADDENDUM
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07 -0154 Promenada Mall v~lalaccess minor mod\PlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 trash Issues
exp.dQc. .
15
F'~.~\rl~~tl~:--~~:~ n---I~~i
STATE Of CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT Of ASH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL flUNG FEE CASH RECEIPT
: i;, OCT 277006
l~~ atDl~/!lfI!(4I
Receipt #
200601088
Lead A8"ncy: CITY OF TEMECULA
Dale: 09/1312006
CounJy A8"ncy of Filing: Riverside
DOCU11U!nl No:
20060 1088
Projec. Title: TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM NO.3
Pf;>
Project App/Jcant Name: CITY OF TEMECULA
Plume Number:
Project AjJplkonJ Address: 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA CA 92590
Project App/Jcont: Local Public Agency
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
IX! EnvtJ'otrJMlII4Ilmpoct Report
o NegaJlve Declaration
o AppIIcaJ/otJ Fee Worer Diven/on (Stare Water Resoun:e.r ConJrol Boord Only)
o Project SubjeCt to Certljmll/egu/Dtory Programs
IX! CounJy Admlnistrat/on Fee
o Project thai Is exemptfromfeu (DeMi1rJmU Exemption)
o Project thot Is exemp/fromftu (NoUee of Exemptton)
$850.00
$64.00
Total Received
$914.00
signa_ and title of penon rece/lllngpaymen1:
~..... .1-f ~~t.R
. N....:
p.
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Determination
TO:
FROM:
Planning Department
Cit' of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
County Clerk and Recorders Office
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 .
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the
Public Resources Code.
State Clearinghouse No.:
Project Title:
Project Location:
[FRW~RSID~COU! (0)
:)8' 13 2006
LARRY W. WARD, CLERK
By <J ~-'"' 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
Temecuia 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 Bem~lno
Meridian on the USGS Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series T~raphic
Map (see Rgures 1 and 2)
c,
A proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the
Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an additional three
years to provide for the future development of the remaining square footage
allowed under the final phase of the T emecula Regional Center SpeCific Plan
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 theabov:e described project on
September 12, 2006 and has made the following detenninations regarding this project:
1. The project ([ ] will [X] will not) have a significant effect on the environment.
2. That ([X] An Environmental Impact Report [ ] A Negative Declaration) was prepared for this project pursuant
to the prOvisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures ([X] were [ ] were not) made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Consideration ([X] was [ ] was not) adopted for this project.
5. Findings ([X] were [ ] were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. .
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 of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Califomia, 92590.
Signature: .
~~~~y/~
Debbie Ubnoske, Director. of Planning
Date:
Q~'NT'U::LERK
)I"'! a ieni&l: OaIerminallon
e, r.R.C. lllB2
POSTED
'>~ 1 ~ zlJllb
Removed: /D - ( &, - J>--6
By: r;;rr-,,~ Depl.
County of Riverside. Stele 01 California
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:
R:\FORMS\CEQA.DEM 9/13106 kIb
ATTACHMENT NO.8
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
. G:\Planning\2007\PA07 -0154 Promenade Mall valet access minor modIPlanning\PC STAFF REPORT rev 9.5.07 bash Issues
exp.doc
16
.'" "1'1111",,
,', .'
;1t> "/
f".' ,.:,
~ill;.\,:,~."_ . ;..};,~
{Ie".., 1'.",,>' ",'f';
....' f" r-'P"",'':'''j'~'f;;1?
\~~;~~:~j
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental:
Case Planner:
Place of Hearing:
Date of Hearing:
Time of Hearing:
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING
COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
Planning Application No. PA07-0154
Forest City Commercial Development
Promenade Mall, between Macy's and Edwards Cinema within the Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263) in the City ofT emecula bound by Winchester Road to the
north, Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west
A site plan Modification Application to change building footprints, drive aisles, parking
orientation, and landscaping ofthe approved Temecula Promenade Mall Expansion Plans
(PA06-0293)
In accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), the proposed project is
consistent with the previously approvedEIR and is exempt from further environmental
review and a Notice of Determination will be issued in compliance with CEQA per Section
15162
Cheryl Kitzerow and Matt Peters, Associate Planners
CityofTemecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
September 5, 2007
6:00 p.m.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be
heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project atthe time of hearing. If you challenge the project
in court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,
the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Questions conceming the
project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of T emecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400:
G:IPlanning\2OO7\PA07-0154 Plomeoade Mall valet aa:css mioor modIPlanning\09.05.07 NOPH-PC.doc .
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: Planning CQmmission
FROM: Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: September 5, 2007
SUBJECT: Proposed Noise Ordinance adding Chapter 9.2 to Title 17 of the
Temecula Municipal Code
BACKGROUND
On April 12, 2005, the Temecula City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the
Temecula General Plan. The General Plan includes a Noise Element which .contains
goals and policies. aimed at reducing the impacts of ambient noise in the built
environment. These goals and policies minimize noise impacts by setting maximum
acceptable noise levels and requiring the community to maintain acceptable noise
standards. However, the City has not adopted a nuisance Noise Ordinance, making it
difficult for enforcement officials to cite individuals who create or contribute to nuisance
noises.
The number of nuisance noise complaints received by the City Council has grown each
year. Furthermore, the City Council has received reports of threats and vandalism
against citizens who have asked their neighbors to keep the noise down or have
reported them to enforcement officials. These concerns prompted the City Council to
direct staff to prepare a new Noise Ordinance that specifically addresses nuisance
noises and enforcement. The City Council appointed a Noise Subcommittee consisting
of Mayor Chuck Washington and Council Member Maryann Edwards to work with
Planning, Code Enforcement and Police staff in the preparation. of a new Noise
Ordinance. The Noise Subcommittee met on January 24, 2007, April 3, 2007, and May
16,2007.
The proposed Noise Ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission on June 6,
2007. The Planning Commission had several concems with the proposed Noise
. Ordinance, including:
. Whether or not there was a demonstrated need for a new Noise Ordinance
· Inadequate backgroJ,lnd on.. City Council Subcommittee involvement and, in
particular, the discussions with Police and Code Enforcement staff
· The terms "unreasonable" and "loud and raucous" were not well defined leaving
roOm for interpretation by enforcement officials .
· . Enforcement of.cerlain provisions too time consuming and unrealistic, e.g.
waiting 30 to 60 minutes to view animal behavior
· Whether or not government agencies should be exempt from these provisions
\.
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0157 Noise OrdinanceIPlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT 09-05-07.doc
. . 1
. Exceptions from Noise Ordinance provisions should be better defined
. Provisions of Ordinance should be compared to other cities
. The process did not involve the Planning Commission
In addition to the comments made by the Planning Commission, members of the public
spoke against the provisions of the Ordinance citing:
. The need for a time of day exception to play and practice live music, similar to
construction hours
. That a Noise Control Ordinance already exists
The Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue the public hearing, directed
staff to address the above concems, and requested involvement in future discussions
. with the City Council Subcommittee.
Staff worked with the City Attorney to revise the proposed Noise Ordinance and a City
Council Subcommittee rneeting was held on July 24, 2007. This meeting also included a
Planning Commission Noise Subcommittee consisting of Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff and
Commissioner Ron Guerriero. The meeting was noticed as a Public Meeting, While a
general consensus was reached regarding the need to adopt a new Noise Ordinance,
additional issues brought up by members of the public who attended the meeting as still
needing to be addressed included:
. Inequities relating to governmental exemptions for civic events
.. Impact is greater on small lot development than larger lot development
. Impact to band andihdividual practice of music
. Violations constitute a misdemeanor
Once again, staff worked with the City Attorney to revise the draft Noise Ordinance to
address these concerns. On August 1, 2007, staff met with the Planning Commission
Noise Subcommittee, Temecula PD and Code Enforcement to go over the proposed.
revisions.' Some additional feedback was received and has been included in the draft
Noise Ordinance. The following changes have been made to the draft Noise Ordinance
since the June 6,2007Planning Commission hearing:
. Section 9.20.020 B. A new definition for the term "Audible" has been added
. Section 9.20.020 J. '. A new definition for the term "Power Tools or Equipment"
has been added . .
. .' .
. .
. .
. Section 9.20.020 K. The definition for the .term "Public Prope~ has been
. revised to include parking lots .
.. ..
. Section 9.20.020 N. The definition for the term "Sound Arnplifying Equipment"
has. been revised to include any musical instrument amplified by an electrical
device !
. Section 9.20.030 EXemptions. City sponsored events on public or private .
property have been removed from the list of exemptions
G:IPlannln9\2007\PA07~157 Noise OrdinanceIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT ~7.doc
. . 2
. Section 9.20.060 A. Power Tools and Equipment. This section has been revised
to be more concise and remove the distance requirement
. Section 9.20.060 B. Audio Equipment. This section has been revised to be
more concise and remove the distance requirement
. Section 9.20.060 C.2. The definition for the term "loud and raucous" has been
revised to be more clear and concise
. Section 9.20.060 C.2. The definition for the term "unreasonable" has been
expanded to be clearer
Issues Considered but not Included in the draft Noise Ordinance
1. Deleting sections of the proposed Noise Ordinance (e.g. Keeping of Noisy
Animals) because of perceived enforcement concems was rejected because
protecting citizens' rights to the quiet enjoyment of their property is deemed more
important than impacts on enforcement officials.
2. The need fora time of day exception to play and practice live music was rejected
because under the proposed standard, there is no time restriction provided the
noise levels are within the levels identified'in Table N-1 or Table N.2. A time of
day standard would be more restrictive.
3. Impact is greater on small lot development than larger lot. development. This
concept was abandoned because under the current General Plan, noise traveling
across property lines must be within certain limits, regardless of lot size.
4. Adoption of the draft Noise Ordinance will significantly impact band and individual.
ability to practice music. This concept was abandoned because under the
proposed provisions live music may continue to be played at any hour of day or
night. However, the volume of the music must be insulated, otherwise contained,
or be within the decibel limits identified in Table N-1, Table N-2 at all times.
5. Violations of the proposed Noise Ordinance will constitute a misdemeanor. This
is true. However, as identified in Section 9.20.080 D., nothing in the draft Noise
Ordinance will prevent. the City from engaging in efforts to obtain voluntary
compliance. This provision is consistent with all other similar City .ordinances. .
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice. of the public hearing was originally published in the Califomian on May 26, 2007.
A second Notice of Public Hearing was published on August 25,2007 for this Agenda
Item.' .
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
,
Staff has determined that Ordinance No.07----'-(Ordinance Regulating Noise) is
exempt from the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEOA")
pursuant to Title 14 of theCillifomia Code of Regulations, Seciion 15061 (b)(3) because
it can be seenwith certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a
'. . significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance will have no adverse
G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-0157 Noise OrdinancelPlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT 09-05-07.doc
3
environmental affects because it will reduce the public's exposure to loud ambient noise
levels and nuisance noise.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that
the City Council approve an Amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code,
adding Chapter 9.2 and establishing Citywide standards for regulating noise.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution No. 07-_ (Noise Ordinance) - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Proposed CC Ordinance No. 07-
2. June 6, 2007 Plarining Commission Minutes - Blue Page 6
3. June 6, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 7
4. Public Correspondence - Blue Page 8
5. Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 9
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07 -()157 Noise Ordi""nceIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT OQ-()5-()7.doc
4
ATTACHMENT 1
PC RESOLUTION 07-_
G:lPlanning\2007\PA07 '()157.Noise OrdinancelPlanninglPC STAF~ REPORT 09.Q5.()7.doc
.. 5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.20 TO THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING CITYWIDE
STANDARDS FOR REGULATING NOISE (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA07-Q157)"
Section 1. Procedural Findinos. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On June 6, 2007 the Planning Commission identified a need to amend the
adopted Municipal Code to add a new Chapter to the Temecula Municipal Code
regarding the regulation of noise (Planning Application No. PA07-0157).
B. The Ordinance was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
. . in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on June 6, 2007, at a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law,. at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
D. At the conclusion of the June 6, 2007 Planning Commission hearing and
after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended a continuance
of the item for staff to address issues brought forth during the hearing.
E. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on September 5, 2007, ata duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law; at which time the City staff and interested persons had an .
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
F. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
ofthe testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning
Application No. PA07 -0157 subject10 and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. . Further Findinos. The Planning Commission, in approving the
'. Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: .
A. The proposed Ordinance is in conformance with the General Plan for
'. Temeclila and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinance of the
City; . .
G:IPlanningI2007\PA07.Q157 Noise OrdinanceIPlanninglPC RESOLUTION 09.()5.()7.dot
I
The proposed Noise Ordinance conforms to the City of Temecula General Plan
in that the criteria for establishing reasonable noise levels is identified in the City
of Temecula General Plan Noise Element. Furthermore, the proposed Noise
Ordinance directly responds to Goal 2, Policy 2. 1 of the General Plan Noise
Element and Goal 3, Policy 3. 1 of the General Plan Noise Element.
B. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the Municipal Code and
Development Code for the City of Temecula;
The proposed Noise Ordinance has been designed to be internally consistent
with the Municipal Code and the Development Code in terms of referencing key
components of the City's currently adopted Noise Control Ordinance, which
applies to construction related noise, and enforcement issues.
Section 3. Environmental Comoliance. In accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Ordinance No. 07-_ (Ordinance Regulating
Noise) is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)
(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance will have no adverse
environmental affects because it will reduce the public's exposure to the harmful effects
of loud ambient noise levels and nuisance noise. The Planning Commission, therefore,
recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula adopt a Notice of Exemption
for the proposed ordinance.
Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of.
Temecula recommends that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA07-
0157, a proposed Citywide Noise as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
G:IPlannlng\2007\PA07.Q157 Noise OrdinariceIPlarininglPC RESOLUTION ~5.()7.doc
:2
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 5th day of September, 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 Resolution No. 07-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th
day of September 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:IPlannlng\2007\PA07'0157 Noisl. OrdlnancelPlilnnlnglPC. RESOLUTION 09-05'07.doc
.3.
G:IPlannlng\2007\PA07~157 Noise OrdinanceIPlannlnglPC RESOLUTION O~7.doc
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.20 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING
CITYWIDE STANDARDS FOR REGULATING NOISE
THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.20 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal
Code to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 9.20 NOISE
9.20.010 Intent. At certain levels, sound becomes noise and may jeopardize
the health, safety or general welfare of City residents and degrade their quality of life.
This Chapter is intended to establish citywide standards to regulate noise. This Chapter
is not intended to establish thresholds of significance for the purpose of any analysis
required by the California Environmental Quality Act. No such thresholds are hereby
established. .. .
9.20.020 Definitions. Whenever used in this Chapter, the following terms
shall have the following meanings:
,
A. Animal" means any bird, cat, dog, goat, horse, burro or donkey.
B. "Audible" means capable of being heard by a person without the use or
aid of an amplified hearing device.
C. "Audio equipment" means a television, stereo, radio, tape player, compact
disc player, MP3 player, i-Pod or other similar device. .
D. "City Manager" means the City Manager or his or her designee.
E. . "Decibel" means a unit (dB) for measuring the relative amplitude of a
sound equal approximately to the smallest difference normally detectable by the human
. ear, the range of which includes approximately one hundred thirty (130) decibels on a
scale beginning with zero decibels for the faintest detectable sound. Decibels are
. measured with a so~nd level meter using different methodologies as defined below:
. 1. A-weighting (dBA) means. .the. standard A-weighted frequency
response of a sound levelineter, which de-emphasizes low and high frequencies of
. sound in a manner similar to the human ear for moderate sounds.
1.
2. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) means a 24-hour
energy equivalent level derived from a variety of single-noise events, with weighting
factors of 5 and 10 dBA applied to the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime
(10 PM to 7 AM) periods, respectively, toallow for the greater sensitivity to noise during
these hours.
3. Ldn means Day-Night Average Sound Level. The A-weighted
average sound level for a given area (measured in decibels) during a 24-hour period
with a 10 dB weighting applied to night-time sound levels. The Ldn is approximately
numerically equal to the CNEL for most environmental settings.
4. Maximum Sound level (Lmax) means the maximum sound level
measured on a sound level meter.
F. "Governmental agency" means the United States, the State of California,
the County of Riverside, the City of T emecula, or any combination of these agencies.
G. "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is self-propelled.
H. "Noise" means any loud, discordant, raucous or disagreeable sound.
I. "Occupied property" means any property upon which is located a
residence, business or industrial or manufacturing use.
J. "Power tools or. equipment" means any mechanical, electrical or
pneumatic device used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work.
K. "Public Property" means property owried by a governmental agency or
held open to the public, including, but not limited to, parks, streets, sidewalks, parking
. lots and alleys. .
L."Public or Private School" means an institution conducting academic
instruction at the preschool, elementary school, junior high school, high school, or
college level. .
M. "Sensitive Receptor" means a land. use that is identified as sensitive to
noise in the Noise Element of the Riverside County General Plan and the Noise.
. Element of the TemeculaGeneral Plan, including, but not limited to, residences,.
schools, hospitals, churches, rest hQmes, cemeteries or public libraries. .
N. "Sound Amplifying. Equipment" means a. loudspeaker, microphone,
megaphone, stereo equipment,portable radio,boom box, any musical instrument
amplified by an electrical device, or other similar device.
O. "Sound Level Meter" means an instrument meeting the standards of the
American National Standards Institute for Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meters or an
instrument that provides equivalent data. .
2
9.20.030 Exemptions. Sound emanating from the following sources is
exempt from the provisions of this Chapter:
A. Facilities owned or operated by or for a governmental agency.
B. Capital improvement projects of a governmental agency.
C. The maintenance or repair of public properties.
D. Public safety personnel ilJ the course of executing their official duties,
including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel. and public
utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all
equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile.
E. Public or private schools and school~sponsored activities.
F. Property maintenance, inCluding, but not limited to, the operation of
lawn mowers, leaf blowers, etc., provided such maintenance occurs between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and8:00 p.m.
G. Motor vehicles, other than off-highway vehicles. This exemption does not
include sound emanating from motor vehicle sound systems.
H. Heating and air conditioning equipment.
I. Safety, warning and alarm devices, including, but not limited to, house and
car alarms, and other warning devices that are designed to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare. .
J. The discharge of firearms consistent with all State laws.
9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards. No person shall create any
sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property. that causes the exterior
sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set
forth in Tables N-1 and N-2.
3
TABLE N-\
TEMECULA LAND USElNOISESTANDAR.DS
Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level
(Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior-!
Hillside
Rural
Very Low 45 65
Residential Low
Low Medium
Medium 45 65 / 701
Hgh 45 701
Neighborltood
Community 70
--
Commercial and Office HghwayTourist
Service
Professional Office 50 I 70
Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75
Public/Institutional Schools 50 65
All others 50 70
V meyards/Agricu\ture -- 70
Open Space Open Space 70/652
--
[ Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple- Family Housing.
2 Where quiet is a basis required for the land use.
3 Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maxinwm acceptable exposure for new residential
development is 60 dB CNEL
4
Land Use
Residentiall
Transient Lodging ~ Mote~
Hotel
Schools, Libraries, alUrches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Playgrounds, Parks
Golf o,urse, Riding Stables,
Watet Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business
CommerciiI, and professional
TABLE N-2
NOISElLAND USE COMPATIBILITY MA TItIX
55
Community Noise Exposure
(Ldn or CNEL)
60 65 70 75
80
Industrial, Manufacturing,
UtilitieS, AgricuIture .
Sowce: Modifred from 1998 State of California General Plan Guidelines.
1. Regarding aUtrnft-relared noise, the rn.,nnmm acceptable el<pOSure for new resideritialdevelopment is 60dB <NEL
2. No normally acceptable condition is defIned for these uses. Noise studies are required ptiorto approval
. .
. .
. ~. NonnaJlyAcceptable: Specifred land use is saw.. factory, based upon the assmnption tbatany buildings involved
~. . _e.t conventional Title 24 coustruction standanls. No speciiI noise insulation .requirements. . .
nIImm..... HH o,ndi. .tionaUYAcce.Pta~le: New.constroction or development sball be undertaken onlyafter a detaiIed noise
ImImD c aruilysis is made and noise reduction measures are identifred and inclnded in the project design.. .
. .
_. NonnaUy U~c~epta. ~Ie: Ne:w cons~n or development~. dis~ourag. eO..~ new construction is proposed, a
..~ detailed aruilyslS IS reqmred, nOISe reduction measures must be identified, and nOISe.
insulation featuresincl..ded in the design.
. Oearly Unacceptable: New constroction or development clearly should not be undertaken.
5
9.20.050 Sound Level Measurement Methodology. The actual location of
a sound level measurement shall be at the discretion of the enforcement officials
identified in Section 9.20.0BOof this Chapter. Sound level measurements shall be
made with a sound level meter. Immediately before a measurement is made, the sound
level meter shall be calibrated utilizing an acoustical calibrator meeting the standards of
the American National Standards Institute. Following a sound level measurement, the
calibration of the sound level meter shall be re-verified. Sound level meters and
calibration equipment shall be certified annually.
9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards. The general sound level
standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of this Chapter apply to sound emanating from
all sources, including the following special sound sources, and the person creating or
allowing the creation of the sound is subject to the requirements of that section. The
following special sound sources are also subject to the following additional standards.
Failure tocomplywill constitute separate violations of this ordinance.
A. Power Tools and Equipment. No person shall operate any power tools or
equipment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. such that the power tools or
equipment are audible to a person located inside an occupied building.
B. Audio Equipment. No person shall operate any audio equipment as
described in 9.20.020(B), whether portable or not, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. such that the equipment is audible to a person located inside an occupied
building.
C. Sound Amplifying Equipment or Live Music.
1. It is unlawful for any person to cause, allow or permit the emission
or transmission of any loud and raucous noise from any sound-making, sound-
amplifying device or live music under his control or in his possession:
a. Upon any private property;
b. Upon any public street, alley, sidewalk or thoroughfare; or
c. In or upon any public park or other public place or property.
2. The words "loud and raucous noise," as used in this section, shall
mean any sound having such intensity or carrying power as to unreasonably interfere
with the peace and quiet of other'persons, or as to unreasonably annoy, disturb, impair
or endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of other persons. . . .
. 3. The determination of whether a sound is "unreasonable," as used
in paragraph 2 of subsection C of this section, shall involve the consideration of the
level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intermittency of noise, time of day or
might, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission
or transmission of any such loud and raucous noise.
6
D. Construction. No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity,
when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between
the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in
or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on
Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and
nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal, state or local entity
or emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of this subsection
D. Residents working on their homes or property are exempt from the prohibition of
construction activities on Sundays and holidays but must comply with the hourly
restrictions set forth for Saturday when working on Sundays and holidays. The city
council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter.
E. Barking Dogs and Keeping of Noisy Animals.
1. Noisy Animal means any animal that barks, bays, cries, whines,
hoWls, screeches or makes any. noise for an extended period of time whether day or
night, regardless of whether the animal is physically situated in or upon private property. .
Such extended period of time shall consist of the above described incessant noise for
thirty (30) minutes or more in any twenty-four-hour period, or intermittent noise for sixty
(60) minutes or more during any twenty-four-hour period. An animal shall not be
deemed a "nuisance animal" for purposes of this article if, at any time the animal is
making noise due to a person or other animal that is trespassing or threatening to
trespass upon private property in or upon which the animal is situated, or when the
animal is being teased or provoked.
. 2. Evidence of said "incessant noise" shall be made by direct
observation of an enforcement official present on site responding to a complaint from a
neighbor, or a complaint form may be signed by a minimum of two neighboring property
owners and submitted to an enforcement official.
3. Nothing in this chapter shall establish standards for private civil .
claims, in either civil court or small claims court, nor shall this chapter preclude any
person from pl.lrsuing a private civil action in either civil or small claims court.
. 9.20,070 . Exceptions. Exceptions may be requested from the. standards. set
forth in Sections 9.20.040 (General Sound Standards) or 9.20.060 (Special Sound
Sources Standards) oHhis Chapter and may be characterized as construction-related or
single event exceptions.. . ..
A. Application and Processing.
1. Construction-Related Exceptiqns. An application for a Construction
. Related Exception shall be made on a Minor Exception form provided by the Building
. and Safety Department and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. No
pUblic hearing is required. .
7
2. Temporary Use Permit. An application for a Single Event
Exception shall be made using the Temporary Use Permit application provided by the
Planning Department and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. No public
hearing is required.
B. Requirements for Approval. The Director of Planning or his or her
designee shall not approve a Minor Exception Application or Temporary Use Permit
unless the applicant demonstrates that the activities described in the application would
not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. In
determining whether activities are detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community, the Director of Planning or his or her designee shall consider such
factors as the proposed duration of the activities and their location in relation to
sensitive receptors. If a Minor Exception Application or a Temporary Use Permit is
approved, reasonable conditions may be imposed to minimize the public detriment,
including, but not limited to, restrictions on sound level, sound duration and operating
hours.
C. Appeals.
1. Construction-Related Exception. Any person aggrieved by or
dissatisfied with the Planning. Director's decision on an application for a Construction-
Related Exception may appeal from such action by filing an appeal according to the
procedures set forth in Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
2. Temporary Use Permit. Any person aggrieved by or dissatisfied
with the Planning Director's decision on an application for a Temporary Use Permit may
. appeal from such action within fifteen (15) calendar days of the action by filing an
appeal according to the procedures set forth in Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula .
Municipal Code.
9.20.080
Enforcement.
A. The City Manager and his or her designee, including but not limited to
police officers, code enforcement officers, park rangers or other enforcement officials
shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this Chapter.
S. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
C. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be subjectto
. the enforcement remedies of Chapters 1.21 and 1.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
D. Nothing in this Chapter shall be intended to limit any of the civil or criminal
remedies available to the City,. nor shall it be intended to limit the City from engaging in
8
efforts to obtain voluntary compliance by means of warnings, notices, administrative
citations or educational programs.
9.20.090 Duty to Cooperate. No person shall refuse to cooperate with, or
obstruct, the enforcement officials identified in Section 9.20.080 of this Chapter when
they are engaged in the process of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter. This duty
to cooperate may require a person to extinguish a sound source so that it can be
determined whether sound emanating from the source violates the provisions of this
Chapter.
SECTION 2. PRIOR ORDINANCE. The provisions of Chapter 9.20 shall
supersede the provisions of any ordinances in conflict therewith adopted by reference in
Chapter 1.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any portion, provision, section,
paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by
any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive
legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and
words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by
the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty
(30) days after its adoption.
9
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of ,2007.
Chuck Washington, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA .)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECWLA' )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading
at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , 2007,
and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of . 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
, ABSENT:
A!3STAIN:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
10
ATTACHMENT NO.2
JUNE 6, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
G:\PIannlngl2007\PA07-o157 Noise OrdinanceIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT og-oS-07.doc
6 .
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 6. 2007
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, June 6, 2007, in the City Council Chaml:lers of Temecula City Hall, .43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners: Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent:
None.
PUBUC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of May 16, 2007.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aPDroval.
PUBUC HEARING ITEMS
2 Plannina Aoolication No. PA06-0026. a Conditional Use Permit. submitted bv .Randi Newton
reDreserttinq SDectrum Survevina. to construct a 70-foottall T-Mobilewireless .
telecommunication faCilitv desianed all.a broadleaf tree within 1;,,676 sauarefootenC!osure.
located at 42010 Moraaa Road. adiacent to the northwest corner of Rancho California and
Moraaa Roads . .
By way of PowerPoint presentation, Associate Planner Damko highlighted on the following:
o Location
o Elevations
R:\MI~utesPCI060607
o Coverage
o Environmental Determination.
Associate Planner Damko requested that Condition of Approval No. 15 be deleted and that a
Public Works Condition be added imposing that a encroachment permit be required for the
project; and advised that the applicant would be in agreement of both the deletion of No. 15 and
the added Public Works Condition of Approval.
At this time. the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Randi Newton, representing Spectrum Surveying, noted that she would be available for any
questions.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation subject to the
deletion of Condition of Approval No. 15 and the added Public Works Eneroachment Permit
Condition. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous '
aooroval.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07.20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
'NO. PA06-0026, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A70 FOOT TALL WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY WITHIN A 676 SQUARE
FOOT ENCLOSURE TO BE LOCATED AT ORCHARD
CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH AT 42010 MORAGA
ROAD ADJACENT TO" THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND MORAGA ROADS (APN: 921-310-
004)
,3 Plarmina Aoolication Nos. PA06-0187 and PA07-0049. a DeveloDment Plan. submitted bit
" Walt Allen Architects. to reDlace an existinll cluster of modular buildinas with a three-storv.
'14.093 sauare foot commercial offiCe buildinll and a 7.369 sauare foot underoround ilarkina
structure on a 0.53 acre site. and a Minor ExceDtion to allow for a 15 Dercent buildina heiaht
increase. located at 27423 Ynez Road
Associate Planner Schum a provided a PowerPoint presentation, focusing on the following:
o ' Project Description
o SitePtah
o 'Elevations
o Architecture - South and East
o Landscaping
o Exceptional Architecture Design - for increased FAR
o Underground Parking
, R:lMlnutosPCI060607
2
Staff requested the deletion of Condition of Approval 93b replacing with the standard condition
of Mt. Palomar Ordinance in its replacement; amend Condition of Approval 79a to improve the
sidewalk from the southerly boundary of Parcel 2 to the nOrlherly boundary of Parcel 1 ; and that
a condition be added to require that the amendment to the Tower Plaza sign program be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
Associate Planner Schuma noted the following:
o That the aluminum accents on the proposed project would provide lighting opportunities
and energy efficiency
o That the bright accent (orange/red) tone would conform to the modern architecture of the
building
o That the target Aoor Area Ratio (FAR) would be 30 percent and that the project would
propose a net Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 61 percent.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. WaltAllen, representing Walt Allen Architect,noted the following:
o That the applicant worked diligently to add as much as he could on the proposed site,
noting that the proposed project would be an exemplary example of where architecture
is headed; and that the proposed building would be setting a standard of redevelopment
forthe center
o That the applicant would be .inagreement of the amendment to Condition of Approval
No. 79a as stated above by staff.
At this time, the. public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Carey noted that although he would be In favor of the proposed project, he would
not be desirous of the red/orange accent on the building.
Echoing Commissioner Carey's comments, Commissioner Harter relayed his enthusiasm with
the outstanding architecture of the project but would not be in favor of the red/orange accent on
the building and would request that the red/orange color be toned down.
Appreciating the implementation of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED), impervious. concrete and outstanding architecture, Commissioner Guerriero relayed
that he would not have an opinion one way or the other regarding the red/orange accent.
Noting that he would be in favor of the proposed project, Commissioner Telesio stated that he,
as well, would not be in favor of the red/orange accents on the building.
/
. . .
. .
,. ..
Having raised the .issue of increaSed FAR!!t previous Planning Commission meetings,
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it would ,be his opinion that the Planning Comlllission.has
not yet approVed an FAR that would meet the desired goal of 30 percent in the last couple of
years; that the Planning Commission would need to have a specific standards that an applicant
would need in order to receive an increase in FAR.
R:\MlnulesPC\060607
3
Commissioner Chiniaeff also relayed that if. the Planning Commission approves staff's
recommendation, it would be important to ensure that the remainder of the center conform to
the same type of architecture and design of the proposed project. Commissioner Chiniaeff also
stated that he would be in favor of the proposed project and would not have a concern with the
red/orange accents.
Echoing Commissioner Chiniaeff's comment with regard to requiring that Ihe center conform to
the design and architecture of the proposed project, Assistant City Manager Johnson relayed
that if the project is approved, standards could be implemented to ensure that continuity is met.
Commissioner Telesio agreed that guidelines for increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be
desired and helpful not only for the Planning CommiSl!ion but for staff.
For the Planning Commission, Assistant City Manager Johnson relayed that a workshop could
be scheduled pertaining to requests for increased Floor Area Ratio and requirements that would
need to be met.
Concurring that a workshop would be needed, Commissioner Guerriero stated that the City's .
Design .Guidelines require that applicants provide Green or other forms of energy but that this
. has not been enforced by staff or the Planning Commission.
Assistant City. Manager Johnson relayed that specific standards could be created by the
Planning Commission and staff.
Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the price of leaseable land would be high enough to warrant the
construction of underground parking and parking structures. .
For the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that that one vote
pertaining to the project be required.
For clarification purposes, the public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Walt Allen relayed that he would be willing to tone down the red/orange accent color to a
terra cotta color.
At this lime, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff reCommendation subject to the
amended Conditions of Approval as requested by staff; and that the redlorange accents be
toned down to a terra cotta color. Commissioner Hillter seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected unanimous apprOval.
R:\MinuteoPC\ll60607
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE .
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NOS. PA06-0187 AND PA07-004, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
REPLACE AN EXISTING CLUSTER OF MODULAR BUILDINGS
WITH A FOUR-5TORY, 26,941 SQUARE-FOOT COMMERCIAL
OFFICE BUILDING ON 0.53 ACRES LOCATED AT 27423 YNEZ
ROAD, AND A MINOR EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR A 15
PERCENT BUILDING HEIGHT INCREASE
4 Plannino Aoolication No. PA01-<l157. a Resolution of the' Plannina Commission
recommendin!:! that the Citv Council adoDt an Ordinance add in!:! chaDter 9.20 to the
Temecula MuniciDal Code establishino Citvwide standards for reoulatino noise
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Papp highlighted on the following:
o Background
o Power Tools and Equipment
o Audio Equipment
o Sound Amplifying Equipment or Live Music .
o Construction
o Barking Dogs and Keeping of Noisy Animals
o Enforcement
o Public Comments
o Environmental Determination.
In response to the questions by the Planning Commission, Senior Planner Papp relayed the
following:
o That the hours of operation for construction could be changed in the Ordinance to 6:30
~m~~OO~m .
o That any City sponsored event or co-sponsored event would be requesting a Temporary
Use Permit (TUP); and therefore, would be exempt.
Commissioner Guerriero expressed concern with creating Noise Ordinances and regulations for
enforcement when State Law would already be in place to cover these types of issues .and/or
concerns.
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that representatives from the Police Department had sat
in on all meetirigs regarding the proposed Ordinances and would be comfortable with the
proposed Ordinance as written.
Further clarifying, Assistant. City Attorney CUrley relayed that the courts haVe. approved local
. agencies adopting Noise Ordinances, and that the Ordinance would be furthering tools rather
than duplicative. .
Commissioner Telesio expressed concern with the ability to carry out enforCernent beyond what
State Code would allow. .
R\MinutesPC\060607
5
Assistant City Manager Johnson noted that the proposed Ordinance would be modeled after the
County's Ordinance.
Commissioner Guerriero expressed concem with information being discussed between staff and
police that is not being included in staff's report; and that the Commission would have difficulty
making decisions without the proper information.
In response to Commissioner Carey's query, Senior Planner Papp relayed that Audio
Equipment and Sound Amplifying Equipment or Live Music hours would be from the 10:00 p.m. .
to 8:00 a.m. and/or anytime if determined unreasonable; and that it would be his understanding
that events in Old Town would require a Temporary Use Permit (TUP).
Commissioner Carey relayed that it would be his opinion that the proposed Ordinance will be
difficult to enforce.
Relaying that he would be in favor of the proposed Noise Ordinance, Commissioner Harter
expressed concem with the following:
o That two different Code Enforcement Officers could have two different standards of the
meaning "Loud and Raucous'
o That the language in the proposed Noise Ordinance would need to be more concise
o That it would not be reasonable for a Code Enforcement Officer to sit 30 to 60 minutes
to determine whether or not an animal is makirig incessant noise.
In response to Commissioner Harter, Senior Planner Papp relayed that his concerns were
discussed at City Council subcommittee meetings; and that although at times it may be
unrealistic to expect a Code Enforcement Officer to sit and observe 60 minutes or more, the
Enforcement Officer would be a signer of a complaint along with the complainant.
Relaying his amazement with this item coming before the Commission at this time, Chairman
Chiniaeff stated the following:
o Queried If all the stakeholders were involved in the subCommittee meetings
o That he would have a concern with the inequities that would be built into the proposed
Noise Ordinance .
o That there may be individuals opposed to an in fill project being built Where a map would
be required
o That he would have difficulty understanding why a City sponsored event would not .be
subject to a CEOA review
o That Uie City tlas adopted its own noise elements in its General Plan and queried why
would the City include the County's General Plan
o That if a homeowner is restricted to using Power Tools and Equipment during specific
hours then a Homeowners Association should be restricted to the same hours as a
homeowner
o ThatSection 9.20.070 - Exceptions. That this Section would be arbitrary and would bll
of the opinion that standards should be set for defining what the Exceptions would be
o That the language "Peace and Quiet" under "Loud and Raucous. be defined and how
would it be applied to everyone in the same mann~r.
R:lMinutesPC\060607
6
Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that there would be two sets of standards that the
Commission would be considering, noting the following:
o That Section 9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards - would be fairly consistent with
State-wide Ordinances
o That Section 9.20.060 SDecial Sound Sources Standards - that these would be
perceived as providing unique impacts and would need to be refined beyond the general
rules.
Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that he would request that staff compare its requests with other
communities to ensure that they would be typical and consistent with the City of Temecula's
general standards. .
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. P. T. Rothschild, Murrieta, spoke against the proposed Noise Ordinance, noting that there
would currently be a Noise Ordinance in place and would not see the need for another one; and
would request that the Commission add time limits to band practices that would be consistent
with surrounding communities general standards.
Mr. Paul Bahu, Temecula, expressed his concern with the propo~ed Noise Ordinance.
Atthis time, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Chiniaeff requested that this item be continued to allow staff an opportunity to
address concerns expressed by the Planning CommisSion.
MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to continue Item NO.4 to Wednesday, August 1, 2007.
Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDPfoval.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
Commissioner Carey commented on the Home Depot on SR79 South, relaying that the
aesthetics of the parking has greatly improved.
Commissioner T elesio thanked staff for their efforts with regard to. the Marie Callender's and
that the color is improved; but did relay concern with the signagelmonument at Pechanga
, Parkway and 79 South as wellas the unappealing utility sign on the median. .
.In response to Commissioner Telesio's comment, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that.
she explore his conCerns. "
, .
Commissioner Telesio adjourned the Planning Commission meeting in remembrance of'
. Operation Overlord, 63 years ago today. .
R:\MlnutesPC\060607
1
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant City Manager Johnson relayed that if the Planning Commission had a desire, he could
request from Council that two Commissioners of the Planning Commission be included in the
Infrastructure Beautification Committee meetings.
For Assistant City Manager Johnson, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the Commission would be
in interested in partaking in the Infrastructure Beautification meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:30 pm, Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned to June 20. 2007 at 6:00 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
~
Chairman
~r' ~~
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
..
R:\MinutesPClO60607
8
ATTACHMENT NO.3
JUNE 6, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
i
,
G:\P1anning\2007lPA07-0157 Noise OrdinanceIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT 09-05-07.doc
7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: June 6, 2007
SUBJECT: Proposed Noise Ordinance adding Chapter 9.2 to Title 17 of the
Temecula Municipal Code
BACKGROUND
On April 12,2005, the Temecula City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the
Temecula General Plan. The General Plan includes a Noise Element which contains
goals and policies aimed at reducing the impacts of ambient noise in the built
environment. These goals and policies minimize noise impacts by setting maximum
acceptable noise levels and requiring the community to maintain acceptable noise
standards. However, because the City has not yet formally adopted a Noise Ordinance,
it has been difficult for enforcement officials to cite individuals who create or contribute to
nuisance noises. The proposed. Noise Ordinance addresses two of the four goals
identified in the Noise Element of the General Plan and one policy for implementing each
goal as follows:
Goal 2 - Minimize transfer of noise imoacts between adiacent land uses;
Policy 2.1 - Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines
and impacting adjacent land uses; and
Goal 3 - Minimize the imoact of noise levels throuahoutthe community throuah land use
olannina;
Policy 3.1 - Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards.
JUSTIFICATION
At certain levels, sound becomes noise and may jeopardize the health, safety or general
welfare of City residents and degrade their quality of life. This proposed Noise
Ordinance identifies general sound level standards, methodology for meastiring sound
levels, enforcement, and exemptions. .
The proposed Noise Ordinance identifies Jive key types of nuisance noise that can be
regulated and enforced under this Chapter of the Municipal Code. These include:
Power Tools and Eauioment - Power tools and equipment shall not be used
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. if they are audible to a person
within another occupied building. Similarly, power tools shall not be used at any
time if audible to a person at a distance greater than 100 feet away.
Audio Eauioment - Audio equipment shall not be used between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. if they are audible to a person. within another occupied
building. Similarly, porlable or stationary audible equipment shall not be used at
any time if audible to a person at a distance greater than 100 feet away.
Sound Amolifvina Eauioment or Live Music - .Loud and raucous. noise
emanating from any sound-making device, sound-amplifying device or live music
is unlawful on public and private property. Loud and raucous means
.unreasonably" (defined in Ordinance) interfering with the peace and quiet of
other persons, or to unreasonably annoy or endanger the comfort, health or
safety of other persons.
Construction In accordance with the City's existing Noise Control Ordinance
regarding construction noise, construction activity shall not occur between the
hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. when within one-quarter mile of a residence.
No work shall commence on Sundays, with the exception of residents working on
their homes or property.
Barkina Doas and Keeoina of Noisv Animals - The provisions of this section
make it unlawful for property owners to allow their animals to be incessantly
noisy whether the owner of the property is present or not. Unacceptable periods
of time are defined as incessant noise for thirty (30) minutes or more within any
twenty-four hour period, or intermittent noise for sixty (60) minutes or more within
any twenty-four hour period. Observation of the offending behavior can be
directly observed by a City enforcement official, or by a minimum of two
neighboring property owners who sign a written complaint.
Enforcement - City enforcement officials shall have the authority to issue verbal
warnings or written citations based on their own observations or in response to
citizen complaints. Any person who violates the provisions of the proposed
Noise Ordinance would be subject to punishment as set forth in Chapter 1.20
and subject to enforcement remedies as set forth in Sections 1.21 and 1.24 of
the Temecula MunicipalCode.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on May 26, 2007 and
mailed to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has determined that Ordinance No. 07-_ (Ordinance Regulating Noise) is
exempt from the. requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because
it can be seen with cerlainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a
significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance will have no adverse
environmental affects because it will reduce the public's exposure to loud ambient noise
levels and nuisance noise.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that
the City Council approve an Amendment to Tille 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code,
adding Chapter 9.2 and establishing Citywide standards for regulating noise.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution No. 07-_ (Noise Ordinance) - Blue Page 4
Exhibit A - Proposed CC Ordinance No. 07-
2. Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 5
,
"
ATTACHMENT1
PC RESOLUTION 07-_
(
(
,
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-.
.A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.20 TO THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING CITYWIDE
STANDARDS FOR REGULATING NOISE (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA07..(357)"
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On June 6,2007 the Planning Commission identified.a need to amend the
adopted Municipal Code to add a new Chapter to the Temecula Municipal Code
regarding the regulation of noise (Planning Application No. PA07 -0157).
B. The Ordinance was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
. in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on June 6, 2007, at a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
D. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning
Application No. PA07-0157 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the
Application hereby finds, determines and declares that:
A. The proposed Ordinance is in conformance with the General Plan for
Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinance of the
City;
The proposed Noise Ordinance conforms to the City of Temecula General Plan
in that the criteria for establishing reasonable noise levels is identified in the City
of Temecula General Plan Noise Element. Furthermore, the proposed Noise
Ordinance direcUy responds to Goal 2, Policy 2.1 of the General Plan Noise
Element and Goal 3, Policy 3. 1 of the General Plan Noise Element.
B. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the Municipal Code and
Development Code for the City ofTemecula;
G:\Planningl2007IP A07-0157 Noise OrdinancelPlanningIPC RESOLUTION.doc
I
-,_.._--".
The proposed Noise Ordinance has been designed to be intemally consistent
with the Municipal Code and the Development Code in terms of referencing key
components of the City's currently adopted Noise Control Ordinance, which
applies to construction related noise, and enforcement issues.
Section 3. Environmental ComDliance. In accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, the proposed ordinance No. 07-_ (Ordinance Regulating
Noise) is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQAn) pursuant to Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)
(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance will have no adverse
environmental affects because it will reduce the public's exposure to the harmful effects
of loud ambient noise levels and nuisance noise. The Planning Commission, therefore,
recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula adopt a Notice of Exemption
for the proposed ordinance.
Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula recommends that thEi City Council approve Planning Application No. PA07-
0157, a proposed City-wide Noise as sat forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference
G:\Planning\2OO71PA07.oIS7 Noise OrdinancelPlanningIPC RESOLUTlON.doc
2
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 6th day of June, 2007.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) S5
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubn05ke, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 07-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th
day of June 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
,
,
O:IPlanni.g\2007IPA07-oIS7 Noise OnlinanceIPlanningIPC RESOumON.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
fROPOSEDCC ORDINANCE 07-_
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-OIS7 Noise Ordinan<:e1P1anningIPC RESOLlTI10N.doc
4
- ~,..."" ._~ ~.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.20 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING
CITYWIDE STANDARDS FOR REGULATING NOISE
. . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.20 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal
Code to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 9.20 NOISE
9.20.010 Intent. At certain levels, sound becomes noise and may jeopardize
the health, safety or general welfare of City residents and degrade their quality of life.
This Chapter is intended to establish citywide standards to regulate noise. This Chapter
is not intended to establish thresholds of significance for the purpose of any analysis
required by the California Environmental Quality Act and no such thresholds are hereby
established.
9.20.020 Definitions. Whenever used in this Chapter, the following terms
shall have the following meanings:
A Animals. Any bird, cat, dog, goat, horse, or burro or donkey.
B. "Audio equipmenr means a television, stereo, radio, tape player, compact
disc player, MP3 player, i-Pod or other similar device.
C. "City Manager" means the City Manager or his or her designee.
D. "Decibel" means a unit (dB) for measuring the relative amplitude of a
sound equal approximately to the smallest difference normally detectable by the human
ear, the range of which includes approximately one hundred thirty (130) decibels on a
scale beginning with zero decibels for the faintest detectable sound. Decibels are
measured with.a sound level meter using different methodologies as defined below:
1. A-weighting (dBA) means the standard A-weighted frequency
response of a sound level meter, which de-emphasizes low and high frequencies of
Sound in a manner similar to the human ear for mOderate sounds.
2. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) means a 24-hour
energy equivalent level derived from a variety of single-noise events, with weighting
factors of 5 and 10 dBA applied to the evening (7 PM to 10 PM) and nighttime (10 PM to
7 AM) periods, respectively, to allow for the greater sensitivity to noise during these
hours.
1
3. ldn means Day-Night Average Sound Level. The A-weighted
average sound level for a given area (measured in decibels) during a 24-hour period
with a 10 dB weighting applied to night-time sound levels. The ldn is .approximately
numerically equal to the CNEl for most environmental settings.
4. Maximum Sound level (lmax) means the maximum sound level
measured on a sound level meter.
E. "Governmental agency" means the United States, the State of California,
the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula, or any combination of these agencies.
F. "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is self-propelled.
G. "Noise" means any loud, discordant, raucous or disagreeable sound.
H. "Occupied property" means any property upon which is located a
reSidence, business or industrial or manufacturing use.
I. Public Property. Property owned by a governmental agency or held open
to the public, including, but not limited to, parks, streets, sidewalks, and alleys.
J. Public or Private School. An institution conducting academic instruction at
the preschool, elementary school, junior high school, high school, or college level.
K. Sensitive Receptor. A land use that is identified as sensitive to noise in
the Noise Element of the Riverside County General Plan and the Noise Element of the
Temecula General Plan, including, but not limited to, residences, schools, hospitals,
churches, rest homes, cemeteries or public libraries.
l. Sound Amplifying Equipment. A loudspeaker, microphone, megaphone,
stereo equipment, portable radio, boom box, or other similar devices.
M. Sound Level Meter. An instrument meeting the standards of the American
National Standards Institute for Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meters or an instrument
that provides equivalent data.
9.20.030 Exemptions. Sound emanating from the following sources is
exempt from the provisions of this Chapter:
A. Facilities owned or operated by or for a governmental agency;
B. Capital improvement projects of a governmental agency;
C. The maintenance or repair of public properties;
/
1
2
D. Public safety personnel in the course ,of executing their official duties,
including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public
utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all
equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile;
E. Public or private schools and school-sponsored activities;
F. Property maintenance, including, but not limited to, the operation of
lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc., provided such maintenance occurs between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.;
G. Motor vehicles, other than off-highway vehicles. ThiS exemption does not
include sound emanating from motor vehicle sound systems;
H. Heating and air conditioning equipment;
I. Safety, warning and alarm devices, including, but not limited to, house and
car alarms, and other warning devices that are designed to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare; and
J. The discharge of firearms consistent with all state laws.
(
9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards. No person shall create any
sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior
sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set
forth in Tables N-1 and N-2.
(
3
TABLE N-t
TEMECULA LAND USE/NOISESTANDAR.DS
Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level .
(Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exteriorl .
Hillside .
Rural
Very Low 45 65
Residential Low
Low Medium
Medium 45 65 1 70'
High 45 70'
Neighborhood
Commnnity 70
--
Commercial and Office Highway Tourist
Service
Professional Office 50 70
Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75
PublidInstitutional Schook 50 65
Allotbers 50 70
Vmeyardsl Agriculture -- 70
Open Space Open Space 70/652
-- .
I M.rimnm exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEt are allowed for Muhiple- Family Housing.
2 Where quiet is a basis required for the land use.
3 Regatdiog aircraft-related noise, the maxinnun acceptable exposure for new residential
development is 60 dB CNEL
4
J
,
Land Use
Residentiall
Transient lrvlging - Mote~
Hotel
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
hitbeaters2
Spons Arena, Outdoor
S rS ns2
Playgrounds, Parks
Golf Course, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
OffIce Buildings. Business
Commen:iaI, and Professional
TABLEN-2
NOISflLAND USE CaMPA TIBILIlY MA TR.IX
55
Ql111IIlunity Noise Exposure
(Ldn or CNEL)
60 65 70 75
80
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities. Agriculture
Soun:e: Modified from 1998 State of California GenenI Plan GUdpli.....,
1. ReganIiDg aircr.oft-reIated noise, the ....n....m acceptable e>posure for new residemia1 development is 60dB CNEL
2. No nonnaRyacceptable condition is defined for these uses. Noise s1Udies are required prior to approval.
~ Nonnally Ai:ceptable: Specified land use is satisfactOlY, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved
~ meet conventional Tille 24 construction standanIs. ,No special noiseiosulation requireme11lS.
IBImm Conditionally Ai:ceptable: New construction or deVelopment sMbe undertaken only after a detailed noise
mill analysis is made and noise reduction measures are jdpnhfV,d and included in the project design.
_ Nonnally Unacceptable: New construction or develOpment is discouraged. If new construction is proposed, a
_ detailed analysis is required, noise reduction measures must be identified, and noise '
insulation features included in the design.
. Oearly Unacceptable: New construction or development cIearlysbould not be undertak=
(
5
9.20.050 Sound Level Measurement Methodology. The actual location of
a . sound level measurement shall be at the discretion of the enforcement officials
identified in Section 9.20.080' of this Chapter. Sound level measurements shall be
made with a sound level meter. Immediately before a measurement is made, the sound
level meter shall be calibrated utilizing an acoustical calibrator meeting the standards of
the American National Standards Institute. Following a sound level measurement, the
calibration of the sound level meter shall be re-verified. Sound level meters and
calibration equipment shall be certified annually.
9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards. The general sound level
standards set forth in Se<;tion 9.20.040 of this Chapter apply to sound emanating from
all sources, including the following special sound sources, and the person creating or
allowing the creation of the sound is subject to the requirements of that section. The
following special sound sources are also subject to the following additional standards.
Failure to comply will constitute separate violations of this ordinance.
A. Power Tools and Equipment. No person shall operate any power tools or
.' equipment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. such that the power tools or
equipment are audible to a person located inside an occupied building. No person shall
operate any power tools or equipment at any other time such that the power tools or
equipment are audible to a person located at a distance greater than one hundred (100)
feet from the power tools or equipment.
B. Audio Equipment. No person shall operate any audio equipment as
described in 9.20.020(B), whether portable or not, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
8:00 a.m. such that the equipment is audible to a person located inside an occupied
building. No person shall operate any audio equipment, whether portable or not, at any
other time such that the equipment is audible to a person located at a distance greater
than one hundred (100) feet from the equipment.
C. Sound Amplifying Equipment or Live Music.
1. It is unlawful for any person to cause, allow or permit the emission
or transmission of any loud and raucous noise from any sound-making, sound-
amplifying device or live music under his control or in his possession:
a. Upon any private property;
b. Upon any public street, alley, sidewalk or thoroughfare; or
c. In or upon any public park or other public place or property.
2. The words "loud and raucous noise," as used this section, shall
mean any sound or any recording or live music thereof when amplified or increased by
any electrical, mechanical or other device to such volume, intensity or carrying power as
to unreasonably intertere with the peace and quiet of other persons within or upon any
one or more of such places or areas, or as to unreasonably annoy, disturb, impair or
".
6
,
"
endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of other persons within or upon anyone
or more of such places or areas. .
3. The word "unreasonably," as used in this section, shall include, but
not be limited to, consideration of the hour, place, nature and circumstances of the
emission or transmission of any such loud and raucous noise.
D. Construction. No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity,
when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between
the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in
or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on
Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and
nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal, state or local entity
or emergency work by publiC utilities are exempt from the provisions of this subsection
E. Residents working on their homes or property are exempt from the prohibition of
construction activities on Sundays and holidays but must comply with the hourly
restrictions set forth for Saturday when working on Sundays and holidays. The city
council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter.
E. Barking Dogs and Keeping of Noisy Animals.
1. Noisy Animal means any animal that barks, bays, cries, whines,
howls, screeches or makes any noise for an extended period of time whether day or
night, regardless of whether the animal is physically situated in or upon private property.
Such extended period of time shall consist of the above described incessant noise for
thirty (30) minutes or more in any twenty-four-hour period, or intermittent noise for sixty
(60) minutes or more during any twenty-four-hour period. An animal shall not be
deemed a "nuisance animal" for purposes of this artide if, at any time the animal is
making noise due to a person or other animal that is trespassing or threatening to
trespass upon private property in or upon which the animal is situated, or when the
animal is being teased or provoked. .
2. Evidence of said "incessant noise" shall be made by direct
observation of an enforcement official present on site responding to a complaint from a
neighbor, OR a complaint form may be signed by a minimum of two neighboring
property owners and submitted to an enforcement official.
3. Nothing in this. chapter shall establish standards for private civil
claims, in either civil court or small daims court, nor shall this chapter preclude any
person from pursuing a private civil action in either civil or small dairnscOurt.
9.20.070 Exceptions. Exceptions may be requested from the standards set
forth in Sections 9.20.040 (General Sound Standards) or 9.20.060 (Special Sound
Sources Standards) of this Chapter and may be characterized as construction-related or
( single event exceptions.
7
A. Application and Processing.
1. Construction-Related Exceptions. An application for a
Construction-Related Exception shall be made on forms provided by the Building and
Safety Department and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. No public
hearing is required.
2. Temporary Use Permit. An application for a Single Event
Exception shall be made using the Temporary Use Permit application provided by the
Planning Department and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. No public
hearing is required.
B. Requirements for Approval. The Director of Planning or his or her
designee shall not approve an exception application unless the applicant demonstrates
that the activities described in the application would not be detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of the community. In determining whether activities are
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, the Director of
Planning or his or her designee shall consider such factors as the proposed duration of
the activities and their location in relation to sensitive receptors. If an Exception
Application is approved, reasonable conditions may be imposed to minimize the public
detriment, including, but not limited to, restrictions on sound level, sound duration and
operating hours. .
C. Appeals.
1. Construction-Related Exception. Any person aggrieved by or
dissatisfied with the Planning Director's decision on an application for a Construction-
Related Exception may appeal from such action by filing an appeal according to the
procedures set forth in Section 17.03.090 of the T emecula Municipal Code.
2. Temporary Use Permit. Any person aggrieved by or dissatisfied
with the Planning Director's decision on an application for a Temporary Use Permit may
appeal from such action by filing an appeal according to the procedures set forth in
Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
9.20.080
Enforcement.
A. The City Manager and his or her designee, including but not limited to
police officers, codeenforcernent officers, park rangers or other enforcement officials
shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this Chapter.
B. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter is guilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
.
I
8
C. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be subject to
the enforcement remedies of Chapters 1.21 and 1.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
D. Nothing in this Chapter shall be intended to limit any of the civil or criminal
remedies available to the City, nor shall it be intended to limit the City from engaging in
efforts to obtain voluntary compliance by means of warnings, notices, administrative
citations or educational programs.
9.20.090 Duty to Cooperate. No person shall refuse to cooperate with, or
obstruct, the enforcement officials identified in Section 9.20.080 of this Chapter when
they are engaged in the process of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter. This duty
to cooperate may require a person to extinguish a sound source so that it can be
determined whether sound emanating from the source violates the provisions of this
Chapter.
SECTION 2. PRIOR ORDINANCE. The provisions of Chapter 9.20 shall
supersede the proviSions of any ordinances in conflict therewith adopted by reference in
Chapter 1.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any portion, provision, section,
paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by
any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive
legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and
words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by
the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty
(30) days after its adoption.
(
9
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
T emecula this day of
Chuck Washington, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading
at a meeting of the City Council of the City of T emecula on the day of , ,
. and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
10
ATTACHMENT NO.2
NonCE OF PUBUC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
" Location:
Proposal:
CEQA Action:
Case Planner:
Place of Hearing:
Date of Hearing:
Time of Hearing:
slUo
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING
COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
Planning Application No. PA07-0157
City of Temecula
Citywide
Review proposed Noise Ordinance and recommend an action to the City Council
Exempt from review under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3)
Emery J. Papp, AICP
City of T emecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
June 6, 2007
6:00 p.m.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be
heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project
In court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the pUblic hearing
described In this notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,
the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Questions conceming the
/" yject may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.
/
I
" G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-Q157 Noise Ordinance\PlannlngINoPH.f'C.FRM.dcic
ATTACHMENT NO. ..
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
G:IPlannlng\2007\PA07 -0157 Noise OrdlnancelPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT 09.()5-o7.doc
8 .
cc: B.Johnson
c..... EDe"..
31815 Corte RDsario-TemecuIa, Ca. 92592
Fax 951-506-2631 - Home Phone 909-676-040 I - Email colU'lld@t!m1ecuJa.com
July 2~, 2007
Dear Mayor Washington
C"u",UReee'",.. .
Re: Noise Ordinance
I have lived in Temecula for 21 years. I have campaigned, and voted for many wonderful
Council people. I have backed and promoted numerous items now incorporated into our
. local laws and ordinances. Today when I read about the proposed noise ordinance in the
Press Enterprise, I was simply elated. The people that I have already talked to are extremely
happy, and are anxious to see this much needed and overdue proposal enacted.
This proposal with out a doubt is one of the best ever to come along. I would bet that at
least 90% of all our citizens would not want a word of it changed. Of course there will be
the offenders, the people that let their dogs bark all day long when they are gone. And some
of the kids that get high in their garages, and beat on their drums, etc. Then there might be
a few that claim the ordinance may hurt them financially. These people will be loud, but few.
I have researehedooisc ordinaneGs for the fQHowhtg dtie:s, Lu::i Augdc.., SIW Dicgu,---
. Sacramento, MaIibu, and San Jose. The proposal is not as stringent as some of these
cities, but certainly every bit as good. Enforcement does not seem to present a problem either.
Malibu has a complaint system regarding "noises by animllls" that supposedly is superb.
Apparently Chairman Dennis Chiniaeffhas never had a night job that forced him to sleep
during the day next to a garage band. To eliminate this kind of noise is one of the most
important items in this proposal.
Would you PLEASE let me know when and where the public meeting regarding this proposal
is going to be held? Also, is there anything we.can do to help get this proposal passed,.
especially without detrimental alterations? We will be glad to help in any way we can.
As soon as I have a definite meeting date, I will start recruiting people to attend.
Sincerely, .
-ee:: ///.~
~....
~ ~~.,; ~;$;r
~ t!-- !\Ltl~ ~ (cJS~ n 7J;
~ ~:lFcrS))
I am as dog-friendly as anybody else. The kind of barking that a dog does while playing
with children is fine and natural. But when a dog lets loose a high pitchetlobarking spree,
say, every 15 or 20 minutes or so, that can be a bit disconcerting. What triggers the
barking sprees of Tony's dog are the people strolling on the side walk that the dog sees
through the spaces between the wooden slats of your elongated gate and the rest of the
front structure. Perhaps Gary or Dwayne can figure a way to block those spaces. One
way I would think is to cover the entire gate and the rest of the structure, from the inside,
with roofing paper. (When there was the wooden fence between our properties, I inserted
strips from thin garden boards to cover the slits so the dogs couldn't see me and thus not
go off on barking sprees.) .'
Tony's dog has pooh-poohed on my lawn twice, irritating my gardener
By the way, I really appreciate the work that Dwayne did for me. He immediately
recognized the problem I was having with a faucet set-up in the patio that included a
contraption for showering outside-I like to douse myself with cold water during the hot
summer days. Taking a lot of pride in his craft, he fixed it-a real class act of plumbing
finesse.
One more note-about once a month I notice a muddy spot extending through a part of
my side of the wall, the result from water seeping below the wall. If you lower the time
limit on that particular watering station of the sprinkler system by, say, three or four
minutes, the seepage will likely cease.
-- ,I}')t.JL-/
Cfe- v- ndqJVr\.
~_._. .-.'..- -- - -
Barking mad
By Kerl-y Madden
1- T-S .1 A.II., AND THB D008 next door me baJ:king again.
,,: AI:tU8Ily,It'sI:15 a.m. on the Blann clock, I:ll a.m. on the
~ clock ODd 7:'Jf/ p.rn. OD the whlte-nolse-_e
clock, whlcb Deverseya the risht time because I unpluglt
ODd C8I1)' It Il'om room to room to hit "l8ln" or"crlckets"
or "ooean" to drown out the barIdng dogs next door. llpml>o
times I'turn up music or bomlw ODe ollllY kId8' IF\Id8. t_
the 1lIn.1D the winter, keep lhewlridowsdo8ed iii the Bummer,
T'hed0g8barktheapllt _ I open a book In bed. 't'beybark
while the colfee Is brewlDgat the crack ordawn. My dnlains In
be_.are IlIIed with the tlmbre of8ll8l1lngdoga.
. Wbentcan DO Iongl!rbearlt, tscream out thewlDdoW like
a 1IabwIfe: "8HIlT tlPI" My busband bangs his head, ODd lIlY
cblIdt$'reproadl me with "MomJ"
Let It llrat be said thet I love dogs. OUr _ boose Is a
menaaerle of cbUdreD and _ - we have three Idd8, two
dogs, two cats, two IInche8 ODd a 1ow-malntenance bennlt
CI1Ib;But thedogsnextdoorbirtanil baI1tand bark. Let's call
tbj!m TIlIng One and ThIng TWo because lIlY heart baa been
blIn1ened by their hlgh-pltched aaaauJt.
". 'TIle owneroCThlngOneand ThlngTWo, Jet'scall George.
HI8 name Is not really George, but lIlY grondmolber Iiad a
Oeorp back In Leavenworth, Ean.. and 1 never really under-
Blood her raw contempt Cor him. But now 1 have lIlY own
. ,George IIY1ng neB door, and It abe were alive, I would call her
up andlllly, "All, nowl understand."BecaiIIe I bate II\YGeorge
with wild. ODd ll'ee .-..., and I wou1d sing It trom the tooC-
topa - only I wouldn't be beard..... his barldngd0g8. '
My grandmother's George did not wear 8hIrt8. My
. OeorlPI__not.......ohlrta_<; apracUce lIlY grand-
motber 'caIIed "common." WheD lIlY grandmnth....... George
dra8Bed his trasbcans to tbe curb, be _ bIB cIIest and
howIeci am1gbl;y'I'snan)'eIL TllIa neverl'alled to Btophercold,
and.abe-lIOt up olfherg\lder.llIllntothe bou8e, BIam the
atonn~r, plckupberlOlllU}' andcrankuptbevolumeon"As
the WotId nuns." MyOeorge does notdo Tamm, but hlscl1o-
I\IIl ofbarklngdoga equals a lhouaand Tarzan8.
George's dogs 1M! about III teet Il'om our bedroom win-
dow. It's iIauaIly tbe middle of the nlgbt wben they IICl'IIIlIbIe
up In a panic, nal18 acrItcbIng across the back porcb as they
IIIngtbeli1selvea ~lntotheyard to Ilarl< at_,
, _It'll aCO;JOte. a 8KIIIIk, cat, racooon. opossum, orltlsac-
tuaI\Y 11OlhInll- but they bark IIIItlI tbey are -.. and de-
feated ODd acrabble back up the Blepa -acrIt!:h. 8CIttcI1. I lie
~ tense, waltlngCortheCJoleto start over.
Recenll1, tbedogawoke me again at 1:30a.1O. on tbeclock
radlo. 1 was home alone, husband and cI1I1dren avnq Cor the
.,~
...annna lb1rmow lor D, n....
weekend, I went outBIdejust as George drove up. I was gnlng.
to be brave and CODIl'ont him. POlItelY. I rehearsed theapeech. ,
I was vet:Y calm. And theil he saw Il1O waiting, 80 be didn't get
out of his car - he just sat there. A atandolf. I wanted to eD-
treathlm - please, have merey. somethlni'llIre: "Ihaveabook
due. I IeeI like a Cl'IU\Y peraob ClllTYlni llrOUDd lhls DOlse ina-
cI1Ine, raIn8totm and cricketB bIaI1Jlll, dB,)' and'nlght." But he
wouldn't get out, and 1 chIckened out. . .
" Another nlght;I d1dllll pound OD the door. He appeared
and IQnIed me, "You betlergetoutofhere, "lll<IlIwasatbler. I
aa1c1, "It'll JOW' neIgbbOrf Your dop haw beenbarldng Cor an
houri" He said, "Ub,~" Then he dIBappeared. Never an
apology. Nothing.. .
My b'lllbaIld bas gone over to talk to him several tImeB,
and the dIsCu88Iona take rorever -lIlY husband thIilks
that eventuaI\Y co...p.....n.. and empathy wIIi penetrate his
thlckhlde.l{aI In one OOllWl'S8tlon. 0eQrge ...........thet we
cut down'our~ trees becauae they are to blame Cor his
dogs barIdng, as they attract aquIJTeJa. ,
I IeIt a _ by BUJy CoI1IDB, caIJed "Another IleallOn I
Don't Keep a Gun In tbe Houae,"lnhlamallbox. PertofltllllOB:
, TIle ndg/Il>orI' dog"'" lIoC.1op _ng. .
1 c10reaU IMIIIIrrdou1a 1n1M_
<WIputona_QnIPhon/IJullblait '.
/nltlcanrtlUM4rhlm~urrderlMmurlc._ng,
barttnQ'r bartfrag,
<WI1IOlD I can... h/1!I.utInt1ln 1M orc/lalra,
ilia /load _ C01l/I/!eIItI/l 08 V Beelllovell
ha4lnclu!fed a ",mtor_ng do(/.
MyGeorgebaB,soQu;_ .8edllOmorereaponaetothe
_lhanlll\l'ofourotherpJeaa.Inthe_....- Ibavepur-
Chased apnlduct caIJed the Dog 8l1encer Pro. It 8bouId an\ve
1II\l'~. It coats $89.88. and I am gnlngto hang It on our Cllnl:e
with a_that the _ of ThIng One and ThIng TWo will,
as promised, Ill$ olfh1gh-l\'equency BOund wavel! that are sup.
posed to "1lIIDOy" but not hurt thelrOlll'8, and tbatall wtn be 81-
IeRt. 'lbe B.'.-.n at Qood LICe Prnducta said dog owners
neverorclerlhls product-It'BalWQB thenelgbhorB. They call
up, desperate, and BBY, "LIBlen. can10U heartbat? can10U
hear It?" and bold up the reoeIver Cor him to Dalen to barIdng
~~ .
I want lhls Dog 8l1encer Pro to be the mtracIe that wtn
~ all 0l.U:' a-. ~ 1;boeo mD8Hd b1gl1-1reqUeucy
IlOUIId wavea wtn C8I1)' with tbeln tbe poodhDtty of llIlOdwlll,
lbrgIveneBB and eveD DeIgbhollIneaa - all reaterIng reaent--
mentswaabedavnq.UDOt,ltcomea w1t11a3O-cl8J1IIOI1O.Y-hacI<
gIWanlee. '
KERBY MADD"" 181M author q{"LouUiana" Song. "
Gettin.g New... York to tli.J?edown
. . '. 1/t"wk;t Ii \JJO<J(I fNr-clU: f.(64.... '. '. ....
""/'
"~.' I
.1
'-,':
'j
,',':,'
"I.r
"There'snoJse eVelywbere: '
,To give the law llOmeteeth,
the e1f<yDel!8EtmentofEnvlron-
men~ Protectlon,Ji; liss!gQJng45
&geJ;ltsto screen ,C(l/t1pl~lnts
about chrol1lc nOlse,esPeellillY,1n
clubs. and homes,' They'll, be
arIi1ed. ,with some . tough . new .'
. ll\Ililellnes: Nl8btclubs!lJll31 not
bl,8s1; m1J$lcthatls."pialnly audi-
ble' (detinooas 7.declbelsllllOre
Ulan ;15feej;.trom.theltfront
dOafs. ,
,Mini: Y\>JU[ ~Hegot New ,u..' NN~O . ..~. the "No, 1~-ot-,
YOr\terstostoP.smokll1g.lnpub- ~~ for resIc1en S8I 1:iie'
Uc bJll1<1b'gl<;.baril. an(! restsu- m$r, ciIlIIng the law ,"a key d- '
rants, and theelty'-s dI:olDgspOts . enient" ofhls agenWL PUblic sen' .
. will SQOQ be free of traDsfats, But . ~nt ~ to be on~skIe,
Qn ~r MiChael It Bloom- NolseeomplalntstopP<i<lthellSt
berg den-- on his Yaw to m8ke of problems Called Into ,the cIty's .
,tbeBlgApple1e..~ . . 31lnoriemergencyhOtllne'lnthll '
'~ \Veek, a 1I!1ieh-J;lallY- Iastta I!lOnths: More than . '.. . . . '. .; . . . ...'
)hoged,n'!!s"Mutrolonllnance.. '. ~'.OOO . Were.." ..iOgged Blnee.' .... last'., UIlBA. Na~C.K. E'i::"NO.ue~tTieNO;l.quailty.of-lifl.el8suk,'. 8.0/lily.,.,..1
wentl!1to "/fllct"tar&\>tl!1i some, ". JIily,. ~ C!f thein.about loud Ma/lor'Michael B. B/ooi1i1lerg, w1IosetJew laWi"l1lude"lV1erJi~,A"
oftheWllrst oll'enderslntheca-, de@ti>ors. . . , ".' .' " . ., '.. '..' , .' . .... . '}~
cophonyof eVeryJlayl\l'bSrtII1'e: '''The,)dea Is tlllitwellsee a . ,~an(! disputes over bQ$p1tal .. A1'ew ch!Yl! Iatar, stibWa.v .coin'"'
MIstei" S01'tel! Ice cream troe!<s, gradua1 dltI\!tenei! In noISe ovei'spaCe;. . ' . .' mutenl at the Vnlori Square sta';
~tlJ:)kUnUngles pllqoVer 1;Iln.~.. not ,~'away: s8Jd Neany 10 yearSliite!:.~tInn.were treat!id. to a. .
'and, oVer;nIlih. . teIub operators,. '. /!PO. kesman. " ;flcl1aelSaui:ler of. RudOlph w, Gfull8nI annouri~' sq\leaiJJlg-ofbi'akesas" ~i,
WIiQ&e ~ IIlu$1Cblari!sblt!>e Eni>l!n1llnentitl<Prii~n acrackdoWnoD.J~;pro- gl>1'traltt~tilrougha tWit
otherwlsecll\IietnP.jgJ>hnrt100ds; ~t,WhIcIi a@JInlBters posl!1g.StUr Ilnei! and pollee en- . nellnto.the$tatllin.Acoild
. ~~~s:,n'ho~of. :~.':i.-clrIven. >.Iaw.. :.'~.~. ...a..,i$:t. ":::.. ~enils.LI~~~o~.~....' "::~~::'b=no .
,'The. .' . .lawlstogNenOiSe,~tliepubllc.~.as' Hallgolngaglllnstthegral!1Qf enveiope(lthestatton.JtVillS
theclf<ythatneverSleWs,"niuch., "out'e&1'S,.~, department's NevtYol"kll1'e, .'. .'. .' 'm!lStlmpo$slbletOWld'
~~and<Met\"'agellts~be responillngto sOmeskepil<;S,thiiJkthebig-- bIin." ..... ......
~.saId'w.henlie l!!gne4 '.lQilJ-'''''ulOOmnlai$;.. M,.ex. &ea!: obstacle to Bloolllberirl! Inl- .A....II. ttie. . oVer. . a.. mlle. '. aw8;lr.
ltlaBt Yiiar"I:Iie llneaforVlol&tlrlg'. p~but'pOIjCeWJl1 teilpoild .' ttatIVe 1$ the ~siWetIoned were~.. 'otitOt. .al4'fd
..:.riolse....". ,1.~.....baW. . ....... n'.......,".... ......'" '.' ...to..co,.. .....'....,......- .t8.as.',.th.'""h..."''''',.'n..''C" ...n.ino.lsli.lri......, ......... . ,. . _..... . tuimel onto........1\:. .
, ,................. -- -,.......""""..-". w"" .w~............. ,...", ....~ ""~""".. '. .;\'Im.. 11..Il.:....,
~J!l~ ~$1OOfo~ .~:., New;fjl~Ji;liot~~nJfclO/nelghboqtllCXl$,~~d&Ub'i d1n.~"!'I1l:1irg ~...:..
.d~oftlo .1,t4~.llUchllptob~~.. Wl\Y&,'):'hedlllJ,yrael\et~be- .,.11 ,..all>\;,wellni4u~, ."
1'IlIieat,1IIgh~l;)otI'enlIers." '. ;"aliY'!",l~InIt.l~JI!Ive\beiili.)ond~C1itlcsSW;'. ..,. ~tof l1D.atl'.emQon'
."Jill~\VIl9l11l\t ~e.R\j-',I!hp~'lfAA;,.l!1:!'llCedt~. . "Jl,s.JnJf'4.~quletJyllVer' bl'll$lr;,. SCQlfe<I.~ .j;jle,!4ea., .
;~.~...~~:g..~.s!"
,..liittOniDiO~:c'*'~!'n!ilSe~Jliti. "'I\llV!1~ .teai-lnit. . tbeStreett.iu..,~YOl1ds~1t'iiriollle.~"
!,.;i~"..W'~~:-~3a...;-t!';~~.
~... "," ,..,~., '''::'':i~gio Intbe. .~>lJdI11gii..,.,.the .'. ..&auc;l!lr ~the,.
:=~;fld~.~,"" "':1:;~~''r~l~.coll-~~'!',\~.~'~ctit~~pr~_~.~pll'
!~'f~'$'r;A:!Il'<i'~.l5;'211ll~.W~t~ ...t1i~:.t.~~=.:':.to'.A~cioWitWEl
'i.&~r.:'i:~~~~""'.~Jf~J;~;"'.'=~~j:;:'~1ri
<<l~'''' '. '" ...... .,':tlIis t6r~tand ~'. '~om.'~'~1e~~ .dtY:otmnl9hpeoPJe;~ . ......
.,~I'don't kIioWlftbl!t(:$il 'tioI4Tllellil.tlatlte_slo\V$;I.iWilil<lePlilg!ld~'h!1OWl,\ihat.you . ..... .,
"soIwt.lUSproblem:~~:..,....a.~. ~ci'ilije'RrQn~: ..~!I~iIci.iliethlng1ik!l.tIUS-. ......
...,~ . ,',,-., ",-;',' ; ;...,.}......'.- "" ....
A noise ordin:lnce takes ..
aim atloud nightd~
'and~But
. some'saythere'sno .
shUShing their city.
"
. By.JO.S/l GBT",~
nme. staJlWrUer
.' ~
.................~,..~ ......,.... ...L"'.,..:.,,t.,............ "':~.""..'.. ..i..(.~~j;~...~~/1'/~;.!lr
.J;..... .'{J't........ .9, 4:U-.". '. '~.' .'t.tW>..... <W f1.. .J".~",;y;. ~.1l.,,.," ,....,.1i.. ......,,',n..., "
.' ,,-:Jl..... .. . ;"~:"_(lII.fIPc 0 ,.a ---..'
: ....~. .'~P(a.ci '16 ..'(j~. =r' .' .....~~.
'";'-'
ATTACHMENT NO.5
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
::
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07.Q157 Noise OrdinanceIPlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT 09.Q5.()7.doc
9
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING
COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
Case No: Planning Application No. PA07-0157
Applicant: City of T emecula
Location: Citywide
Proposal: Review proposed Noise Ordinance and recommend an action to the City Council
CEQA Action: Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3)
Case Planner: Emery J. Papp, AICP 0
Place of Hearing: City of T emecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Date of Hearing: September 5, 2007
Time of Hearing: 0 6:00 p.m.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be
heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project
In court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described In this notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,
o 0 0
the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p;m. Questions concerning the
o project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula PIa,nningDepartment, (951) 694-6400.
G:\Plannlng12007\PA07-0157 Noise Ordlnanoe\Plan~ing\NOPH-PC 09-05-07.doc
ITEM #4
,-
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING:
September 5, 2007
PREPARED BY:
Dana Schuma
TITLE: Associate Planner
PROJECT Planning Application Nos. PA07-o220, a Development
DESCRIPTION: Agreement; PA07-o048, a General Plan Amendment; PA06-
0370, a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 35181), PA06-0369 a
Development Plan; and PA07-o090 a Minor Exception for a
608,934 square foot Industrial distribution building on 32
acres, and for the future development of the remaining 52
acres to Include Industrial, commercial, retail, hlgh-density
residential, and/or public institutional facility land uses
RECOMMENDATION: [gI Approve with Conditions
o Deny
o Continue for Redesign.
o Continue to: .
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
.0 Recommend Denial
CEQA:
o Categorically Exempt
(Section)
(Class)
o Notice of Determination (Section)
o Negative Declaration.
[gI Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
G:\PIanning\2006\PA0lHl370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM351~1 )\P~nning\PCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc .
. --. - -
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: Temecula Properties, LLC (The Garrett Group and PHS)
Date of Acceptance: December 12, 2006
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: September 5, 2007
General Plan Designation: Industrial Park (IP)
Zoning Designation: Light Industrial (L1)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site: Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Industrial Development
Industrial Development
Vacant
Lot Area:
84 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
608,934 SF/0.43 FAR (Lot 4 of TTM 35181)
. 354,762 SF/25.35 percent coverage (Lot 4 ofTTM 35181)
Landscape Area/Coverage:
Parking Requir~d/Provided:
801 parking spaces required/409 parking spaces provided
(Lot40fTTM 35181)
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
. .
In August of 2006, the City of Temecula staff identified a number of incentives to encourage
Professional. Hospital Supply (PHS) to expand its facilities within the community. PHS is
currently one of the largest employers in the City, and the retention and expansion of their
facilities is considered to be an important priority for the City Council. Between August 2006
and December 2006, City staff and the representatives of PHS and the Garrett .Group, the
current property owner and developer, met regularly to forecast the project entitlement
process, and discuss environmental issues and site planning for the 84-acre site and lot
. selected for the PHS expansion: .
On September 18, 2006, the applicant filed an application for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to
facilitate the future PHS development on a 32-acre portion of the84~acre site. The LLA was
. approved and recorded in DeCl:lrnber 2006. . Applications for a Tentative. Tract. Map (TTM
35181) and a Development Plan were submitted on December 12, 2006..A DRC meeting was
held on January 4, 2007, to discuss site design, landscaping, architecture, acCess points,. right-
of-way easements, and other departmental issues:. The applicant' submitted a revised
Tentative Tract Map and Development Plan on February 6,2007. An application for a General
Plan Amendment was shortly submitted thereafter on February 8, 2007.. A status letter
addressing several outstanding project items including additional Tentative Map comments
was sent to the applicant on March 6, 2007. The applicant submitted a Minor Exception for a
one percent building heightincrease on March 20, 2007.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06.{)370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanningIPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
2
Weekly meetings continued with the representatives of the Garrett Group and PHS to discuss
concems over environmental impacts and unresolved Tentative Map issues, including the
Westem Bypass right-of-way easement, access points, fault zones, grading, slopes, etc. The
applicant submitted a third revised Tentative Map on April 6, 2007, a fourth revision on May 10,
2007, and a fifth revision on May 25, 2007. As staff continued to work with the applicants
between March and June to address the outstanding issues, several status letters were sent
documenting the remaining unresolved items before the project could be scheduled for
hearing. Final Development Plans consistent with the Tentative Tract Map were submitted on
June 14, 2007, and the plans addressed Planning staff recommendations. A final
environmental report (Jurisdictional Delineation) was submitted on June 27, 2007 which
enabled staff to move forward with the initial study for the project. Staff prepared and noticed
the Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration for comment on August 4, 2007.
Staff has worked with the applicant over the last year to ensure that all concerns have been
addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval; however,
. the applicant still has some concerns over the proposed. cultural mitigation and is currently
working with the Pechanga Tribe to amend the language to address their concerns.
ANALYSIS
Develooment Aareement
The purpose ofthe proposed Development Agreement is to guarantee the right of Professional
Hospital Supply (PHS) to expand their facility and establish the physical development
parameters that the expansion would bring to the community. The proposed Development
Agreement would guarantee PHS the ability to construct a corporate headquarters on 32 acres
of an 84-acre site generally located at the northwest corner of Dendy Parkway and Winchester
. Road. The proposed Agreement will also authorize future industrial, commercial, retail, high
density residential, and/or public institutional facility uses on the remaining 52 acres
surrounding the PHS facility. A copy of the Development Agreement is included in this staff
report.
The proposed Development Agreement provides benefits for both parties, which includes a
high quality development on the subject property, certainty in the type of development to be
undertaken on the property, and the assurance of adequate public facilities to ensure the good
of the community. For the City, the proposed agreement serves to provide for employment
growth anticipated to result from development of the property, an increase in sales tax
revenues anticipated to result from development of the property, and the achievement of the
goals and directives of the General Plan. The followirig summarizes several proposed terms of
the agreement: .
. . Establish the term ofthe Developmeflt Agreement for ten consecutive years frorn the
date of a Certificate of Occupancy forthe building to be constructed on the .PHS site.
. Development of the property fur industrial, commercial, retail; high-densityresidential
and public institutional facility uses in accordance with the specific matrix of permitted
uses in the agreement. Commercial and office facilities are anticipated to bririg
employment and generate sales tax revenue.. ..
· Establish vested rights to develop the property only upon sale or lease of the PHS
property.
· Provide for any multi-family residential uses on Parcel 1 located on the eastern portion
. .
G:\P1anning\2OO61PAlJ6.{)370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanOinglPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
3
of the property to include an affordable housing component (20 percent of each phase
developed).
. Provide for a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 45 percent for the PHS property.
In addition to the Development Agreement, the project includes a DIF Deferral Agreement
which will authorize a fee wavier in the amount of $2,000,000 towards any City fees or costs.
General Plan Amendment
The purpose of the General Plan Amendment is to designate the 84 acres as a future Specific
Plan area. The future Specific Plan is anticipated to implement the City of Temecula General
Plan land use goals and policies by encouraging diverse, high-quality land uses and mixed use
development on the acreage surrounding the PHS site. By accommodating a diverse mix of
land uses the City can achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a range of income groups, a
viable commercial and employment base for residents, and high-quality urban lifestyles.
Designating the land as a future Specific Plan Area will still provide a guideline for future
maximum density and intensity of development, while encouraging mixed commercial, office,
and residential development in a key location west of 1-15 and adjacent to the future Western
Bypass corridor. The uses anticipated under the future Specific Plan will be analyzed for
General Plan consistency with the Specific Plan proposal.
Tentative Tract MaD No. 35181
The project proposes to subdivide approximately. 84 acres into five lots, four developable
parcels and one easement parcel for slope and drainage purposes. The property is zoned
Light'lndustrial. The development standards for LI found in Section 17.06.040 of the
Development Code require that lots within this zone have a minimum lot size of 40,000 square
feet. The average lot size will be approximately 15 acres. Lots 1 and 2 will be approximately
15 acres each, Lot 3 will be approximately 5 acres, Lot 4 will be 32 acres, and Lot 5 will be
approximately 17 acres. A future Specific Plan will define ,the anticipated .land uses and
development standards for three of the four developable parcels. The future Specific Plan,
consistent with the Development Agreement, will accommodate for future industrial,
commercial, retail, high-density residential, and/or public institutional facility land uses on the
. three parcels totaling appro~imately 35 acres. A Development Plan (PA06-0369) for Parcel 4
proposes a new industrial medical distribution facility for Professional Hospital Supply (PHS)
. Corporation.
Develooment Plan
. .
. The Development Plan for. Parcel 4 will allow PHS to expand their operations onto this site
frqm another location in the City. The proposed plan provides for a development of up to
.608,934 square feet of building area on a 32 acre parcel. The project will consist of a three- .
story industrial building for office, warehouse/distribution use, and a 400 square foot pump
house. The maximum building height allowed in the ,Light Industrial (L1) zone is 50 feet. The
warehOUSe .portion of the building will be 42 feet in height, and the 82,476 square foot.
office/entrance portion along the eastern side will be 50'8" in to accommodate for adequate
ceiling heights on the interior as well as adequate .rooftop equipment screening with a
decorative exterior com ice. Additionally, the project proposes an. increased floor area ratio
(FAR). The target FAR is 40 percent and the project proposes a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.44
percent, not to exceed 45 percent per the proposed . Development Agreement. The
G:IPlannlng\2006IPAOlHl370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlanningIPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
4
Development Code does allow for projects to exceed the target FAR when the project provides
for outstanding and exceptional employment, fiscal, social, and economical benefits to the City
and community (Development Code Section 17.08.050). The project as designed conforms to
all the development regulations listed in the City's Development Code, including building
setbacks and lot coverage. The building's FAR and height are in excess of the Development
Code requirements, but the applicant has applied for a Minor Exception to allow for the
increases.
Access, Circulation, and Parking
The PHS project site will have two access points from the street. Primary access to' the
proposed development will be provided'via an entrance off of Dendy Parkway, with secondary
access provided via an entrance off of a proposed extension of Remington Avenue. The
parking lot provides adequate circulation for distribution trucks and vehicles anticipated to
utilize the site. The majority of distribution operations will take place at the rear of the site,
screened from the main building entrance and common pedestrian traffic. The Fire
Department has reviewed the site plan and determined that there is proper access and
circulation to provide emergency service vehicles to the site. The Public Works Department
has reviewed the site plan and has determined that the project, as conditioned, provides
, adequate access points and right-of-way dedications. In addition, staff has analyZed the
"potential traffic impacts of the project provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared
by Urban Crossroads dated October 20, 2006, and has determined that with implementation of
the required improvements and fees as part of the Conditions of Approval the projected traffic
volumes for the site will be less than significant.
, The City of T emecula requires parking be provided at a ratio of one space per 1,000 square
feet of warehouse and one space per 300 square feet of office. Parking to accommodate the,
proposed development will be accomplished by 409 surface parking spaces (401 standard and
8 handicap accessible parking spaces). The City's parking ordinance does not address large
'scale distribution facilities such as the proposed project; however, other jurisdictions in
southern Califomia do. Based on City standards a total of 801 parking spaces are required for
the PHS project. The project will provide a total of 409 on site parking spaces. Based on
PHS's unique operations, in which warehouse/distribution activities run seven days a weel<l24
, ,hours a day in three shifts with approximately 245 employees per shift, an alternate' parking
plan has been implemented.- Recognizing that distribution facilities require above average
loading capacity and typically have lower employee counts, 409 parking spaces are adequate
, for the facility size and use. The alternate parking plan is based, upon the inverse relationship ,
between loading capacity for freight movement and employee parking requirements. If the use
on Parcel 4 were to change in the future, in which the required amount of warehouse' storage
and loading areas were ~o decrease and employee parking needs were to increase, the site
,can accommodate for an additional 392 automobile parking by re-stripping, the loading areas. ,
. . . - .J
, Architecture
, , The~roposed PHS building is consistent with the Development Code, DesignGliidelines, and
, compatible with other adjacent buildings. The proposed architecture includes smooth concrete
with decorative reveals. The applicant uses color variation in hues of grey and beige to break
up the building mass: A varying parapet height and decorative cornice along the roof,ofthe
office portion help provide for visual interest along the,long expansive walls 'of the warehouse.
Color and reveals on all sides of the building help to break up the expansive walls:,' The
G:\Plannlng\2OO61PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanninglPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
5 '
building also includes an enhanced three-story image zone by emphasizing the entrance/office
portion of the building. A 170-foot wide protruding entrance lobby is provided complete with a
ten-foot recessed entryway, large expanses of windows, and a decorative steel canopy. The
design is further enhanced with deep vertical and horizontal reveals, decorative lighting, and
enhanced paving to complete the look of a high-quality industrial building that is both functional
and aesthetically pleasing.
Landscaping
The PHS landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code
and Design Guidelines. Tree and shrub placement will serve to screen onsite parking, trash.
enclosure areas, and effectively soften building elevations and retaining walls along
Winchester Road and Remington Avenue. The project proposes 12different types of trees in
various sizes ranging from 15 gallon to 48-inch size box trees. The project also provides for an
outdoor employee break area, as well as deCorative pedestrian friendly features including an
auto court at the front entrance. The employee break area will be complete with tables,
benches, decorative paving as well as trellis structures and canopy trees to provide shade.
The project proposes to landscape 354,762 square feet or 25 percent of the site, which
exceeds the minimum landscaping requirement of 20 percent for the Light Industrial (L1) zone.
In addition, an approximate 110 foot wide slope on Parcel 2 (approximately 4 acres) will be
landscaped as part of the development of Parcel 4 (See Condition of Approval No. 94).
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on August 25, 2007 and mailed to
the property owners within the required 600-foot radius.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and, based on an Initial Study, determined the project will not have a significant impact
on the environment:
1. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CECA"), City staff prepared ari Initial
StUdy of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development
Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map (TIM 35181),
Development Plan, and Minor Exception as described in the Initial Study ("the Projecr).
Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determin~d that there was
no substantial evidence ttiat the project could have a significant effect on the
environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.
2. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the
. intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law. Thepublic
. comment period commenced on August 4, 2007, and expired on Septeinber 3, 2007.
. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the
offices of the Department of Planning, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California 92590. '
3. Three written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all
the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and
incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings.
G:IPlannlng\2006IPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )IPlanninglPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
. 6
4. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to and at the
date public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is no
substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment;
and (3) the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the Planning Commission.
5. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby
adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the proposed project, as conditioned and upon approval of the
Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, and Minor Exception, is consistent with
the City's General Plan policies, Development Code, and all applicable ordinances, standards, .
guidelines, and policies. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Development
Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Development Plan, and Minor
Exception with the attached Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
Develooment Aareement
To recommend approval of the Development Agreement; the following findings must be made:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land
uses, and programs specified in ihe City of Temecula General Plan in that the
. Development. Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real
property for industrial, commercial and residential development.
.2. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the Circulation
Element of the. General Plajl, and the traffic. impacts of the development will be less
than Significant or substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and Conditions of
Approval. imposed.
3. The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the zoning di&trict in which the property
subject. to the Development Agreement is located,and thai this Development
Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to .
develop the property consistent with the General Plan.
4. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience,genenil
welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a
bah:ince of land uses Compatible with the remainder of the City. .
5. . The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community because it provides adequate assurances for the protection
thereo[ .
G:lPlanning\2006\PA~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)lPlanningIPCIPC &TAFF REPORT.doc
. . ~
6. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation
and this Development Agreement are expansion of an important local employer that
could bring additional employment opportunities to local residents.
7. The potentially significant impacts to the environment from the project will be mitigated
to a less than significant level based upon the identified mitigation measures.
General Plan Amendment
1. The amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The proposed amendment to add a future Specific Plan area to Table LU-5 of the Land
Use Element meets the goals and policies of the General Plan, and is consistent with
the anticipated impacts of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General
Plan and the guidelines of the Development Code. Any future proposals for the
Specific Plan area will be subject to the City's General Plan, Development Code and
Design Guidelines to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community is
maintained as new development occurs. .
2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses.
The proposed amendment to add a future Specific Plan area to Table LU-5 of the Land
Use Element is compatible with the existing and surrounding uses because any future
proposals for the 84-acre site will be consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan and the content and processing requirements contained in the
Development Code. Therefore, the proposed amendment will be compatible with
existing and future uses in the surrounding area. .
3. The amendments will. not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent
with the goals and policies ofthe adopted General Plan.
The proposed amendment will not conffict with the existing zoning or designated land
uses throughout the City. The proposed amendment will result in compatible future
development, which meets the recpmmended land use and circulation. pattem,
maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses and other factors
consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. .
Tentative Parcel Maof16.09.140J
1. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are
. . consistent. with the Development Code, General Plan, and' the City of Temecula
. .' Municipal Code. .
Tentative Tract Map.No. 35181. is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision
. Ordinance, the Development Code, and Mun1cipal Code because the project has beeh
. designed in a manner that is consistent with the policies and standards in the General
. Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, and Municipal Code.
G:\Plannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\Planning\PClPC STAFFREPORT.doc
8 .
2. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the Califomia Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is
subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division
of the land will not be too small to sustain agricultural use.
The subject parcels do not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered
into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The subject property
has not been designated for conservation or agricultural land and is not subject to the
California Land Conservation Act of 1965.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the Tentative Map.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed industrial development because the
proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The
proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM 35181) meets the minimum lot size requirements
contained within the Development Code, and is consistent with all of the requirements
found within City of Temecula General Plan and the City of Temecula Subdivision
Ordinance. The subdivision (TTM 35181) is therefore consistent with the Light
Industrial zone.
4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with Conditions of
Approval are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. .
. The proposed project site does contain sensitive habitat. . The project impacts will be
mitigated toa level of insignificance based upon the identified mitigation measures and
the Conditions of Approval and will not therefore cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat.
5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health probiems.
The project,' as conditioned by the Fire Prevention Bureau, the Public WOtKS
Department, and the Building and Safety Department, will comply with the applicable
improvement requirements. designed' to prevent serious public heaUh problems.
Furthermore, provisions are made in the GeneralPlan and the Development Code to
ensure that the public heaUh, safety and welfare are safeguarded.' The project is
. consistent with these documents. .
. . 6. The d8$ignof the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or Cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible.
Prior to any issuance of building permits for the subject subdivision, and prior to any
construction, the applicant will be ITJquired to submit building plans to the City of
Temecula Building Department. These plans will be required to comply with all
applicable Uniform. Building Codes, which also include requirements for energy
conservation. Therefore, the construction plans will comply with all applicable building
codes and State energy guidelines. .
G:\PIanning\2OO61PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )IPlanninglPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
. 9
7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision, or the design of the altemate easements which are
substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided.
The required right-of-way easements, including the future Westem Bypass and Cherry
Street alignments, are included on the Tentative Tract Map (TTM 35181). The City has
reviewed these easements and the design of altemate easements, and determined the
type of improvements will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at
large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
8. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedications requirements
(Quimby).
The subdivision is consistent with the dedication requirement.
Develooment Plan (17.05.010.F\
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City.
The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code because
the project has been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the applicable
policies and standards for light industrial development. The proposed industrial use is
permitted in the land use designation standards contained in the General Plan and
Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is
physically suitablefor the type of development proposed. TheprojeCt, as conditioned,
is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances,
including the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design
Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The overall design of the project, including site design, building height, setbacks,
parking, circulation,and.other associated site improvements is intended to protect the
health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project is consistent with
all applicable policies,guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure thatth.e
'development will be constructed, and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety, and welfare.
Soecial Use Reaulations and Standards. Increase in Floor Area Ratio (17.08,050.A\
. .
1. The project includes a use which provides outstanding and exceptional benefits to the
City with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the
community.
G:IPlanning\2OO61PA06-0370 PHS Tenlative Map (TTM35181)IPlanningIPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
10
The project provides exceptional fiscal and economical benefits to the City in that
Professional Hospital Supply (PHS) is a major employer within the City, as well as a
large generator of sales tax revenue. PHS has experienced substantial growth and
their continued growth and expansion within the City will help to meet the fiscal and
economic needs of the community. The proposed expansion site requires a four
percent floor area ratio increase for a state of the art distribution facility and office
headquarters large enough to accommodate future growth of PHS operations.
Minor Exceotion (17.03.060.0\
1. There are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships created by strict application
to the code due to physical characteristics of the property.
There are practical difficulties related to the building construction and architecture that
make it difficult to meet the development standards for the Light Industrial (LI) zone
without the Minor Exception. In order to provide an appropriate ceiling height for each
of the office floors and visually screen roof top equipment the cornice along the office
portion of the building must be 50'8" in height, thus requiring a one percent building
height ilicrease to meet the development standards of the LI zone. Without the
granting of the Minor Exception the building would not meet the current standards,
which poses a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship.
2. The Minor Exception does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available
to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the
property of other persons located in the vicinity.
The Minor Exception does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available
to surrounding properties because the exception is consistent with Development Code,
. which allows for up to a 15 percent deviation from the LI development standard. The
request for the Minor Exception allows for the one percent height increase of eight
inchf#s and special privileges have not been granted which are not otherwise available
by meeting the findings within the Development Code. The granting of this exception
will not be detrimental to the public welfare or property of other persons within the
vicinity as the height increase is only for the office portion of the building, which is only
14 perCent of the entire building footprint. .
3. The Minor Exception places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding
properties and does not permit uses Which are not otherwise allowed in the zone.
The Minor Exception to increase the building height places suitable conditions on the
property to protect surrounding properties. The proposed project is for an industrial
building, which is permitted in the Light Industrial zone. The Minor Exception will allow
,a one percent height increase, which will not allow for uses which are not otherwise
. allowed in the zone. .
G:lPlanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )lPlanninglPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
. 11
/
."
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Vicinity and Aerial Maps - Blue Page 13
2.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 14
3.
PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 15 (Development Agreement)
Exhibit A - Draft CC Resolution 07-
4.
PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 16 (General Plan Amendment)
Exhibit A - Draft CC Resolution 07-
5.
PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 17 (Tentative Tract Map)
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
6.
PC Resolution 07-~ - Blue Page 18 (Development Pian and Minor Exception). .
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
."
7.
Initial Study - Blue Page 19
8.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan - Blue Page 20
9.
Public Correspondence - Blue Page 21
10.
Par1<ing Study - Blue Page 22
11.
Statement of Justification - Blue Page 23
12.
Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 24
G:\Plannlng\2006\PAlJ6.lJ370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanningIPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
12
. ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY AND AERIAL MAPS
/
G:IPlanningl2006\PAlJ6.0370 PHS Tentative Map {TTM35181)IPlanningIPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
13
.~
,#
"t:j~""
~ ,JO.
t., ,jJ
"<%
"'~
"
'\
\
./,/
';',..,
'<~.\
;\
\.
.,
\\ /-;;';"
\\'</
IX.>'
;!i
",:
,
\
, ,q;)"
/ ~'
.\ / ..F~"",<
\~\:, " /',
"
\
, .
;/
~\ /'/ ,/
\~ \ / / / /'
\~.:,Q... \"(.~~...'.-J:~~/.../. (\// "/" ", ,> ,
.I:.\:. "." /':,: / '/""/ ",
' " ' '\ o'., .\ "', " ,
j"~~'.:>': ! ~ ...., , \~~
' ".. i / \ \\
:',-;;: -',f7j1 /X~\ ~\ // rr::\~ \~
/, ~~bRO~-.c..~_J;j1 /" / \\ \ ~).L.....;.
.~'" , --- ~~ , .~ '*', '.
C=-1'ill'~', L' r I n'\, \ -'ur< ~
,I ! '---15 (' '\.,\\ I' '" , 4,000
., . '."'''. ..,
r "=-~', \ /, '. ' , ~ooo
l~ 'I " ,/ \ ' 1000
. ',-"i \/0500,
',;',,--, .9 \1
~ ..:T----'-'.....,
/',.. 111-_
v"
4"'"
"'''''',-
"
,~.
)
I
'<b
"''t,.
'to
~t.,
',J"
':f~~
G~
<l:-~t.,
//\ h
!'\
""-: '",/
(:.."''-,
,.l" "
<0, ,
.<1>'"
$'.
, ", \
~\'-of\,~i,:~,
i~','
c;
, ~~,(,,/'\ x: \
\~\ >: \,'
tf"'< \",,\~_r,,(
'''Q''- '
~OR ',"
"" , <:j
,~;} , ,~ .' "
~ "',~ '. '., . ,,-,>:?f,
'. ".~^,-<'I.:: '< // '\/
\~~ \ ./. " /",
1<'<-"" X:/
. \. '-"<;,)':f~. , '\ / \,
./ .< >i:J /-<~~;><-'c<- /r<" ,"
,>, , '~, ""',;\ / " /\
j.~::. \.,' -~\ "'".' ."Y\ ~ '_,_ / ~ /
",-<;:v\:~, v c7'\. '<\, (:,~/ -' " "', ).
\ - "/~"-<}'-/ b.~ "\/>"~-_'/.;,i _ "'-.. '--../.'
'. '-'r",._ / ,~'- '--) ">,}( ~+ "-.., , ('
'~''';'';''/< '~',> ';)-7',
">>:)~ ",
.'
.~
, .;.
~.
.'
.~
, .~;.
" ~'/.
''--',: ~. - -41--..."
"-"--"::'~~''-''''''-''-
".. ''-,'''' ,
4 '''-<'''-'''-''\
-? ". '''-, ,--' ,
//:? '-;) ''-..,.
. . , .'.....,.
./ .' <...,,.#~ /. /'<:''',
"':'-(,
",'\., .
'-;' '-
;/ \,"'If
j/ ,Jiti>
. "',~-:.
-.../
"J
~'\.-":"
~c"
','.
'. ;}
,fY'
\,
"
, "-..~'
",-
1:,.,
.",
U""ft.
, \
, ,
".9:.
''r'~
<~', '
.~v-'
;t.-~/
.11'
"''''
r
",
'<:'--':/
'\'-,/'
-<<-
/ /
1/ /\,
I! y
" " 1..-"'-
! f ~!'/
..... (--'!
"".'1 I
I _ _\ .~_'~'
/.
'-":'-"
,
'.
9\,>9"
&-#
~
~~~\~
'r.....'
._~-- -..-:.-,....
~:--:::._-\..
''-c/'
~-\
\,-/..
;
// /</"--....
~/'\ ./ ,'\- /'-
/;>'- \ //'\ "'"
,.</ '\ ./> \ :^",
~:" /~:\,)(.,>,)
~o~~~>., ><~><;:>E''!?
/
~,
,\
"~_I
,..' /',
&'
. -OS
."""" '
_vr>- :
_/.....:'>-'//
, ',)
,
/
"
,
.
City ofTemecula
I PA06-0370 I
. Legend
o
600
1,200
2,400
3.600
Feel
~
!ill
- -
- -
. .' - - .,:..~' "'
Thls map was IMde by lheCity oITeme4fa~c Informllllon Syltem.
The IMp II cIertv<<I tom bale Uta proclidId by the RlversIde Cotntr Aueuor'I
Oepa1ment'" the TranaportatIon Ilidland~A~oIRlNnilHl
County. The City oftemecAUllml" noWM'allfyorlegsllltpGndliltyforthe
WormdQn~ on.... map..OlItIMd 1r1Ior1rICbn........... onthb IIIIlp
.. tuIIiId to updlde end mocIlIcdon. The GeogrephIc lrlormatlon system and
oIheraowcu IhlMM be quen.d,forthe mostCUl'Nl1llnbmalicn
Thlsn'llP"nottll"NPtnIor~.
R:lQIS\AaronM\5US TnplalOl\MII_twnpl8te.mxd
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PLAN REDUCTIONS
G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlanningIPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
14
"
10 i sil"
:!i ~ I ~i l' ~ ' ~ ~
~! i~ ~~ I I . ~ ~i ~ i ~ ~
~ l l~h: l I ~ h Ii I in~ ~h I'
l I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II Ii ~ /I~ ~I~ ,;
~i I ,q~" ~ H ~ ~~ i i i~ I ~hl hu
~I jSli sh!~; LUII~ d~~~~ ~gglh~bhllilil!UII~I:!
~~ fd. I ~~!~ ~! ~I ~I ~ ~!h, I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I ~~ M. ~~.~ ~.d~
iillj!~ ;I;i;r' ~'~! ~ ~I ~!~ ~!!: !u~~n !~@!!!~!II~~;I~;I~b
.........
~
.........
~
~
Cl.
~
h...
(,J
~
I..::::
~
i:::::
~
~
I..::::
~ '
~
"I
~
~
..
~~
~i
...!il
"""
~"
~~
'~~~~
~t.
~~
.,~ .J
'~ ~~
-:: '\~ ~~
~~
~~
~
~
i
,
~
!k . ~
d~,e~1 ~ 1:,;1
Inhd2H Ilhl~l!i
dUUUlllI1 II
I I HI
II ~ o~i Hi
~~
~~
'I ~
I 0
I
I
i
~ -,
. '.
. .
,
~
~
'Il 8
: ~ ~l
t>~
i ~ 6 i
, ~ ~ I
i. ~ ,
; ;I ~ f
~ 1!li'l
B~ 1,lll .
it ! 'I!~l\:
I lill~j:
~ ~ ill:!!;
!l & nl'll
'I ~I ~11l" i II
B\; u'llll . w
II ~:idll
I I
s s
Ii
. 'II
,
it !!
~
~
..
~I ~
~'l'
r
~ ~
!ll i. I J ':
~Ii~ ;Ig~
~ 1111!
~~ ,.J'II11
C Lj
"
~
~
': \J~1l
, :!I ~II
il' .
n' l!111 ~
, r~ IiI', ii,
i ~I I=J ~i It
I
it , ~
'~ ------~
. '. ~ !
:/;~- !
LJ C
It
"'"
I j
~ ~
I: I:
G G
~
~-
-
\>'"11:aBl.,=
--
....
-:-
,:-
Ii
-------
. .
-i!-~,! II
,
~
Iii h! II I~. Ii i"
!l~ ll~ I: I~: ,ll!i I': ~;~
V,S Iii I' '! i~ ,! '!'
Iii \'i!! I!li !ili! ill i'i
l ~ Iii! Ii; !Hil!,1 III I!! ifnl:
~ II! · II j' . I" "'il
~ l ~ ~. f .!Lb .51i 1111; lli'll:
~. ~ ~ <l <l <l <l I.. ~ 1 .. ..I
I ! ... 1 <l <l
.
t
,
~i ~
{;It?
~ :::
~ i
. (
,
.1to'\
i l"\i\ '
~ . - \
.' .
: ~\ ,
"'...
...~
~~ -~ \ ". ~
~!
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-..-----
.'" !
~
'i
1
;;
~ .
<:i i
H
l
~ ~ i
~ lJ
I
~ 1
I
.
I
I
I ! I
~ Ii
I
I 1
i II i
I
t
I
" gil
.-- 11'11 I
raM11
...Ii
@
~~
i
-..-..-----
-'-,
"- ,.---
'~
~
___ijt....; H'-
---'' ,;11 I::!
','I '\ 1'1'
" ",I
lil ' fl'
I:i \ ,!,.
t: \ Iii
\ ).I.LJ,"I:1
\ / Jii2}1
\, 4.1 fj~/j'.i!l:
, "'I' "'" '-1'
\\J\(~?; it ;f
~::/..... "% ,d
. v'
. .Yj
4 /
~
/
",
~
i
.., ~
i ~ i
,
/
;;;
~ U
<S i!
~ S~:
t; ~~
~ o~ I
~!i i
;:!i ,
~
!
~
,
.1>
1;;'/
ti/f
ill
~! / (/
1/11/
! .
!
r
I
;
h
. ~
I
I
;;
~
~
~
~ ~
III
ii......'I!
~l
~
lIill'i
~.
m
!
b
'""'
~ j
3~ ~
~g; ~
~~ ~
1; ;:;
~
~
SJi ~~-
~ll~'d
~... "j ill~l
.'. !.
<,~Ji'i
, I
ill.. I
i! a
i'l"lill
"I .!di III
il!lll!!!!!
iiii lniJ:
S&Ii..-
I :fgl! ~ I !i f :
Il!!r"~.
!pgj ~
1I5s !!i
.81 I!:!
I ' i ill
, " ~
I _. ~ ~
"'!Il f
ill I i _L---------J..--- 1
" I 8 ~ I ~ I
: "" Ill! j i ,'I!: Ii.
II I'", 'II ii,
· I I! I i 11,1 I 'II I Iii;
'I Ii! i Ill! !.lldj I!!dl q nl i
I I,.! Ill! ill' I Il!!I: I ,Illli lillll I i
il Is 'III I Ihl!lllllllll!dllll nlil! L I 11,,1
~ I i1111i1II1I1I!IIU lllllil Ii! II !ili, ! II !IIi! II ii !llllll
o
ni
i~1
...111
...
'"
.. .
'; ,
'l,,'iii,-Ill
1,1I11ii III
!
;
~
-~
--
'I! I
'III 11!!!i
,iil ",..;
!Iii
"I'
I. I
.PIII
I !I
I iii
n!l
~
if
.'
II
/
/
//
/ .
,- /
/ . I
-- / -
/ /
/
_/
/
____L~~:-~:-=-_-_~::~::=
Q.
~
,
:;;:
~ I" gl~lnJ IIJ. . I
8i
0
X> il ::1.. I
~~ , ~J I!~',
i o~
-~ fH "I'
. I ill ~h 1.- II 11l"IH
I ~ .. , ..I ",,! fl~
~
i
: ; .
. i I I
'II I 1111,
I II I" .
lillll III II P
'ii/lIl1ii'll
ii<'ill'il'l!
, II Ii, !
J~~'~~k'''''.~~
~
I <;
III Ie
Ii' ~~.
. ~ I L
II Itl'
ill il:
...... .),
I:~II
......
I
Lm.~... :~
~
"
~
~
! !
G>--j
'I! I
i 1I!!11
i ",,,,
,
i
i
~ I
I jj!d
~; !,.sth
z 3 IiIlu
:il Ii
~
'~~l
;~ L
:;;
!
II
Q.
-
,
...
<
II' !
1'1 I
I ii 'II
. ,& ~ ! .1
I . P'
~ji I ill
-I! i I II
II. I'
~n!! ~I
..
"
J;J
./ Ii
: I :
I
I
0-
II
I'
H
iI
I
I
II
0-',
\,... !
\, I
" "
'\11
, '
"
\j
......
~_M
l>.
~ . ~i !I' M
ill ~ Ii i I ,:,
0 III.. <
x~ ~ ~J 110.1
~g: I .
o~ ~ 1"1 !~U ,I I!
-~ ~
ill ~ '. ~jg I Ii Ill" Ii; I
~ 8hUl .I,,! II;
~
.~
"
l
;' I,
. U",
:' ..'- .~
,.' I,
0- '/ '
0-
il
0-
.....,;;&l;i1iII.
E>-
E>-
('"
il
I
0-
i
.
...'..:
. i
! .
I . I
-! II I Ii
Ii iii I "
'I I;' i I"
!I till;. !!
Clill!! II! I III
I"l i Ii II' ! ii' I
L...J!..L
> I iil
II ill
~ ,I ..I
d~ Iii
ill 1'111
9:1. 1"
"i 1'"
is. i~1
> I' iu
~ 1'11'1'
, II ,Ill
Ii ~i;_'
~~
i';
~
~
II g ,m
., i,~..
f~jr'f!
"
.
i
,
,
I i
ii'
! I . !
I,' III
I H I II
i
,
,
i
.
.
i
II
III
. "
':.
$
~
-
e . G> 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 e e
"-
;:;:;
<(
i'!' 1_ ~llnl
~
is 11I1..1~
~>
~~
i ~; t!1,5ii;
"'~ I~d iii, Ih!
I I 1lI
I g "..1,111 d!l i ,Ii
~
> I III
. I 1'1
~I' I'
.,1 ,!I
~ '1 Iii
.11 ,,'II ;
SI. I"'
U'm !
~i. hI' !
; 11111'1 ,. I
:::I.: :.. I I
$
--.4-
g
, l:l
-l 'F!~~ .
+~-'Iil' i ;
,'r" ~ -.
'. E i
--t---t--- ~ ; --~.--
-- . -r--" '-T-- -r----"- -. ..--.-
J i !
$
--++-j-
.L
I
-+-;--1
I I
L..! ... g ...1.....
I... LH.j.
~~U) .
~8~ I i
. -ilgi-l I
- ..... i .- t... ......
I ~ .
~ ...J
I
.. .;-.~._j._.
i
fT' ....
+.-t
"-
'"
N
<
+-+-+
I I I-
. -'-'- - ---,--f- - .~-
I I II
I Irll-
--L---L- ---J-I
, ,
I I II I I
, , , , ,
I 111-
, ,
, --t----+-- 1-1-- ,/ -
, , " /
-I ILl 1//
I I II I
-t----t-- -1--1- ------
, , ",'
I I I j--~-1---1---
I- I I I I I I I
-,-----1- ' ',-I
, . .."
- I I 1+-++ -
. . .".
I I I I I I
--I----T---T-T-l
, . , , .
I It--+--+-
, - ,
"3f8-'f' _ ~ - .
""'"I1Ill~
--'c~~f'll .
.I&NWlD~ II ~I
n~~'jY ,nddJ1S'1YJJdSOH1VNO~~ I"':
'3NJ 'SN01lIAN!l \~ ~ _"1a!W__ l
~ ....... .~
-- . "-i!lm
~l. ~..
I
I
I
I
..", aa"ll . MATCJ.lLINE SEE 5l4EET L-~ .
"~.l .nUI
UllUllllllil 111I1 ill...'....'.,....,",...,......",....,,,.,....,,,..........,,"
II'1 WII! Ijlljlll i
1IIIIIIllllii I I 'A' B I
'ill II ! II
III q I U I
I1II II I Iii II U !
IIIIIIIIIII~ IIIIIII11 I ill
I I f'j fl l8 II
I ~. I ~ EHJ Ill'
... , "
. . ;j
! l I
jl I I
d . ,
. I I I ,
I I I! I
I I I I I I
II I I I I ~ .
I I 11111" ~. !lll. .
111111 II 1111 g
I @~~OOc1W !Ill I
I
. h ,1,
.. ... .
III II
jl "! l !!! i1i
.1 " I .
,
1'1'
I Ii' ,I Jf
I I I I I 11/, '.
II III I I ill
1111111111 I III
I II II II II 1111 Iii
~I 0~~L.
~
OC
~
~
~
pENl?Y PAF!KIIl~Y
"",,,,toO'!!~.
'J'
III 1ft
fltH')
JIl111
I!iUH
I'JII~!:
t !hj
~ i~iifii
I P!!li!
~ f!;mi
i ,U':d
....
,
on
,
...
i
~
!!;
~
iil
~
I:
-- ""Ii;;; ~ - .
:DltJTIIJ.-~
.....tc~
-
:::,;, . ::::: . ':I,q
.. ... ... .. · I Ii
n
I I I 'I
I I I I 11111 ! I ill!
, ',I I I I I I I I I I i'l
I' ,',' , , , tit' III ,I'
I 11.11111111111111111111111 ii'
~10E9~@OO00if*'~.~
.~~~ A"dfi"Vlld'OH1VN~;; J 11~
,..__..... N\f'W ~ J.WNIoI"'ERI=I___ I
I
I
I
nil' ~UIJ
,,);,. ",,,.,
mWlWU!l 1Il1l1li
"IIII,l,lli' jjjjj! IIi./ljjj !
Ilhhlilhill ! I ! JI i B I
11111111111 !
III I illi n ! ~
1111111'1111'~,L1 '111'11/ I III ~ !!l~.
I III 11111 ' II II I H ~a ~
I ~ I ~ ~ ~ m II ~ mll
---
---
'" MATCHLINE SEE
,
.-J
~ i
9 W
iii ~
Q -J
I ~
il:
I
I
I
I
'u,. ...,,,1
Uh' ""UI
UHlWWlll 1Il1l1li
111111 jjjlll'jjjjjji.
111111,11' _____I r---! ;,
Ilhhlilh~1 .I! i _d! g I
IIill I ,II, p. I
I ,IIIIIILI I~i I ilK! i !
I 1111111111111, lUll ~ i. I n i~
I ~ I ~ ~~ m i,1
- "!f&.;p~-'
DUTI11-~
"-Al:~
.. .
- . -J
' f
l I
II I
.. .
I I I I
III i Ii
II I I I I ~
11,1 illlll ~ !!u.
,1111 II II II II g
,I ~OO~ I mIl
.. .. - . .. I
II II!! I e !i
i'
I I I I 'Ill
II I III ';II!
I III I I I i I
" II ! I ,I 'Ill III
,I II II In II, 11,11" III
~I~L.
,.~~~ A'ddf1SmldSOH1YN.;r;;~ ! I 1!
~___ Nl"W"""""",,,,_'Blld__ II
.i!~
l~
MATCf.lLINE SEE 5f.1EET L-3
~
Q
....I
ia
I
'"
.
-'
I-
W
~
W
m
'2
::i
a
~
..."!Jii.f -~ - .
..-_~~
-
..... . . I. .. . j I
'III I j' " li.l
~! !! I ' II II I
l ,_ :t, ,.! U
I I'
I ! i I I I I I I I ,I
I I I I II I I I I I ill,
. I .11
" I II , I , I I I '1.1 IIi
I 1111111111111111111111111 'III
5. O~~OOOOcr*I~.~
.~~lr mdnS"lVJJdSOH.~~~; 'I ~l
v --- II ..J6
""_.... frrft1;I~.uttNJ.I'1aW'IU._ II II
1.1..
h'" 1m
lID I i II
.
Illjj I
II II 'II 'I" ___,H i G m/jj I
.... :.. : ... I ! e i.
I I il i ~'I JI P. I
Illill,'11111 hlllllllR e I
I II I II ,II I "1 5 I
I I I III ~ j
~1I~hm II!~I !! I i I ~
I 6l0o.GK")~ I @~rn I ~ i m IY
g
a".'
~ iii~1
!!I
.
11I1111"
I! lilt.
II'
)~ III t11
111:UI
11~111.
)~ 15ult
)~ 11'111'
1.1.l1i
'tl""
)~ ~ b!i.;!
)~ ~ i P!!fi!
& J'Jl"
)~ Q ~ 1'1 ~I
..... ,llf~1I
ai
~ I
- -
-
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-_
(DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT)
.
G:lPlannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlannlngIPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
15
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA07-0220, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
TEMECULA PROPERTIES, LLC AND THE CITY OF
TEMECULA TO AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
APPROXIMATE 84 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD
AND DENDY PARKWAY IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
(APN 909-370-018 AND 909-370-032)
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On September 5,2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve Planning Application No. PA07-0220.
B. The Agreement was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
application and environmental review on September 5, 2007, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
D. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning
Application No. PA07 -0220 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending that
the City Council approve the application hereby finds, determines and declares that:
To recommend approval of the Development Agreement, the following findings
must be made:
A. The Development Agreement is. consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses; and programs specified in the City of Temecula General Plan in that
the Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real
. property for industrial, commercial and residential development.
G:\PIanning\2007\PA07.o220 PIIS Development Agrecment\PIanningIDRAFf PC Reso DA.doc
1 .
B. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of
the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and the traffic impacts of the development
will be less than significant or substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and
Conditions of Approval imposed.
C. The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the
uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the zoning district in which the
property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development
Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to
develop the property consistent with the General Plan.
D. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience;
general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for .
a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City.
E. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community because it provides adequate assurances for the
protection thereof. .
F. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from
this legislation and this Development Agreement are expansion of an important local
employer and could.bring additional employment opportunities to local residents.
G. The potentially significant impacts to the environment from the project will
be mitigated to a less than significant level based upon the identified mitigation
. measures.
Section 3. Environmental Comoliance. The Planning Commission hereby
makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the
. approval recommendation of the Development Agreement (PA07 -0220):
A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act rCEQA"), City staff
prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
Development Agreement as described in the Initial Study ("the Project"). Based upon
the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial
. evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the environment and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.
B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period
and of the intent to adopnhe Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law. The
publiccomnient period commEincedon August 4,2007, andexpir'ed on September 3,
2007 . Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at
. the offices of the. Department of Planning, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park
. Drive, Temecula, California 92590. .
C. . Three written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a
response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted tothePlannirig
Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings. .
G:\Planning\2007\PA07'()220 PHS Development Agrecment\PlanningIDRAFT PC Reso DA.doc
2
D. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prior to and at the date public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds
that: (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2)
there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the
environment; and (3) the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.
E. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for this project.
Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula recommends that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA07-
0220, a Development Agreement between Temecula Properties, LLC and the City of
. Temecula to authorize the development of an approximate 84-acre site.
G:lPlanning\2007\PA07-0220.PHS Development AgreemeolIPlanningIDRAFT PC Reso DA.doc
. 3
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 5th day of September 2007.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA ) .
.1, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify thatthe forgoing PC Resolution No. 07-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th
day of September 2007, by the following vote: .
NOES:
pLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
AYES:
ABSENT:
. ABSTAIN: .
. Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary .
. .
O:lPlmming\2007\PA07-0220 PHS Development AgroementIPlmminglDRAFT PC Reso DA.doc
.. 4
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 07-~
(, .
G:lPlanningl2007\PA0700220 PHS Development AgreementIPlanningIDRAFf PC Reo<> DA,doc
5
,
RESOLUTION NO. 07.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA07-0220, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TEMECULA PROPERTIES, LLC AND THE
CITY OF TEMECULA TO AUTHORIZE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATE 84-ACRE SITE
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY IN THE
CITY OF TEMECULA (APN 909-370-018 AND 909-370-
032) .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. . The City Council of the City of Temecula
finds and determines that
A. On September S, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve Planning Application No. PA07-0220. .
B. The Amendment was processed including, but not limited to a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on SeptemberS, 2007, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
D. . At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
ofthe testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning
Application No. PA07-0220 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
E. On
on this Resolution.'
2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
(
. .
F. At the conclusion of the City Council heariilgand after due consideration
of the teljltimony, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
project and approved the recommended Devalopmimt Agreement. under Planning
Application NO. PA07-0220 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder
and the a~ched Exhibit A . .. . .
G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findinas. The City Council, in approving the Development
. Agreement hereby finds, determines and declares that:
To recommend approval of the Development Agreement, the following findings
must be made:
A. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula General Plan in that
the Development Agreement makes' reasonable provision for the use of certain reai
property for industrial, commercial and residential development.
B. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of
the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and the traffic impacts of the development
will be less than significant or substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and
Conditions of Approval imposed.
C. The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the
uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the zoning district in which the
property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development
Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to
develop the property consistent with the General Plan.
D. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience,
general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for
a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City.
E. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community because it provides adequate assurances for the
protection thereof.
F. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from
this legislation and this Development Agreement are expansion of an important local
employer that could bring additional employment opportunities to local residents.
G, The potential significant impacts to the environment from the project will
be. mitigated to a less than significant level based upon the identified mitigation
measures.
.. Section 3. Environmental Findinas. The City Council hereby makes the
following environmental findings. aM detei"minations i1, . connection with the'
recommended approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment:
. .. . -
A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), City staff
prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
General Plan Amendment as described in the Initial Study ("The Project"). Based upon
the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial
evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a
Mitigated Negative was prepared.
B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period
and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law. The
public comment period commenced on August 4, 2007, and expired on September 3,
. 2007. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at
the offices of the Department of Planning, City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California 92590.
C. Three written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a .
response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning
Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings.
D. The City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to and at the
2007 City Council meeting and based on the whole record before it
findsthat: (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with.
CEQA; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect
on the environment; and (3) the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City Council.
E. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council adopts
the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project.
F.
Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective on
2007.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City. Council of the City of
Temecula this day of
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
Chuck Washington, Mayor
I; Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. . was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
. NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: .
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
. COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SusanW. Jones, MMC
. . City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
.DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
. )
\
G:\Planningl2007\PA07-0220 PHS Development Agr<cDICIltIPlanning\DRAFf PC Rcso DA.doc
6
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WILL BE PROVIDED .
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-_
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
G:IPlannlng\2006\P~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlanningIPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
18
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA07-0048, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO TABLE
LU-5 OF LAND USE ELEMENT TO DESIGNATE AN 84
ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF DENDY PARKWAY AND WINCHESTER ROAD AS A
FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN 909-370-018 AND
909-370-032)
Section 1. Procedural. Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
!
. .
A. On February 8, 2007, The Garrett Group filed Planning Application No.
PA07-0048, (General Plan Amendment), in a manner in accord with the City of
TemeculaGeneral Plan and Development Code.
B.On September 5,2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve Planning Application No..PA07-0048.
C. The Amendment was processed including, but not limited to a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on September 5, 2007, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
E. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning
Application No. PA07-0048 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
F. All legal precOnditions to theadoptionofthis Resolution have occurred.
. Section 2.. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending that
the City Council approve the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that:.
. . .
. . . . .' .'
. . < . .
. . .
. .
. . .
To recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, the following findings
must be made: ... . . .
A. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
O:lPlanningl2007\PA07-0048 Temccula 84 OPAIPIannins\DRAFf PC Reso OPA.doc
.1.
The proposed amendment to add a future Specific Plan area to Table LU-5 of the
Land Use Element meets the goals and policies of the General Plan, and is
consistent with the anticipated impaCts of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the General Plan and the guidelines of the Development Code. Any
future proposals for the Specific Plan area will be subject to the City's General
Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines to ensure the public health,
safety and welfare of the community is maintained as new development occurs.
B. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses.
The proposed amendment to add a future Specific Plan area to Table LU-5 of the
Land Use Element is compatible with the existing and surrounding uses because
any future proposals for the 84 acre site will be consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan and the content and processing requirements
. contained in the Development Code. Therefore, the proposed amendment will be
compatible with existing and future uses in the surrounding area.
C. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and are
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
The proposed amendment will not conflict with the existing zoning or designated
land uses throughout the City. The proposed amendment will result in compatible
. future development, which meets the recommended land use and circulation
pattern, maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses
and other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Section 3. Environmental Comoliance. The. Planning Commission hereby
makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the
approval of the General Plan Amendment, (PA07-0048):
A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), City staff
prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
General Plan Amendment as described in the Initial Study ("the Project"). Based upon
the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that there was no substantial
. evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.
B. .. Thereafter,. City staff provided public notice of the public comment period
and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law. The
public comment period commenced on August 4,2007, and expired on September 3,
2007. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at
the offices of the Department of Planning, . located at City Hall, 43200 BusineSs Park
Drive, Temecula, California 92590.
C. Three written CommentS were received prior to the public hearing and a
response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning
Commission and inCorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings.
G:IPlaiming\2007\P A07-0048 Temeoul. 84 GP AIPlanninglDRAFf PC Reso GP A.doc
2
D. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prior to and at the date public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds
that: (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2)
there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the
. environment; and (3) the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.
E. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the. Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for this project.
Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula recommends that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PAO?-
0048, a .General Plan Amendment to Table LU-5 to designate an 84 acre site as a
future Specific Plan area.
G:IPIanning\200l\P A07-0048 Temecula 84 GP AlPlanniagIDRAFT PC Reso GP A.doc
. 3
-~---
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 5th day of September 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 Resolution No. 07-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th
day of September 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: .
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ..
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
O:IPlaiming\2007lPA01-0048 TcmecuJa 84 OP AIPlanninglDRAFT PC Reso OP A.doc
4
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 07-_
G:\PIanning\2OQ7IPA07-<1048 Temecula 84 GP A\PlanninsIDRAFf PC Reso GP A.doc
. 5
RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA07-0048, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
TABLE LU-5 OF LAND USE ELEMENT TO DESIGNATE
AN 84-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF DENDY PARKWAY AND WINCHESTER
ROAD AS A FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN 909-
370-018 AND 909-370-032)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula
finds and determines that:
A. On September 5, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve Planning Application No. PA07-0048.
B. The Amendment was processed including, but not limited to a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on September 5, 2007, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
D. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning
Application No. PA07 -0048 subjectto and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
E. On
this Resolution.
, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
F. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
. project arid approved the recommended General Plan Amendment under Planning
Application NO. PA07-0048 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder
. . and the attached Exhibit A:
G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. . Further Findinas. The City Council, in approving the General Plan
Amendment hereby finds, determines and declares that: .
A. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community;
The proposed amendment to add a future Specific Plan area to Table LU-5 of the
Land Use Element meets the goals and policies of the General Plan, and is
consistent with the anticipated impacts of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the General Plan and the guidelines of the Development Code. Any
future proposals for the Specific Plan area will be subject to the City's General
Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines to ensure the public health,
safety and welfare of the community is maintained as new development occurs.
B. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses;
The proposed amendment to add a future Specific Plan area to Table LU-5 of the
Land Use Element is compatible with the existing and surrounding uses because
any future proposals for the 84-acre site will be consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan and the content and processing requirements
contained in the Development Code. Therefore, the proposed amendment will
be compatible with existing and future uses in the surrounding area.
C. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and are
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan;
The proposed amendment will not conflict with the existing zoning or designated
land uses throughout the City. The proposed amendment will result in compatible
future development, which will meet the recommended land use and circulation
pattern, maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses
and other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the GeneralPlan.
Section 3. Environmental Findinas. The City Council hereby makes the
. following environmental findings and determinations. in connection. with the
recommended approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment (the Project):
. A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), City staff
. prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
General Plan Amendment as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings.
contained in that study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that
the. Project .could have a significant effect on the environment .and a Mitigated. Negative
Declaration was prepared. .. . . .
. .
. .
B. Thereafter, City staff provided pUblic notice of the public comment period
. and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law. 'The
public comment period commenced on August 4, 2007, and expired on September 3,
2007. Copies of the documents have been available for pUblic rev,iew and inspection at
. the offices of the. Department of Planning, located at City Hall,. 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula,Califomia 92590.
C. . Three written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a
response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning
Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings.
D. The City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to and at the
, City Council meeting and based on the whole record before it finds
that: (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2)
there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the
environment; and (3) the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City Council.
E. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council adopts
the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective on
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
Chuck Washington, Mayor
. I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the CityofTemecula, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 07- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the. . day of , by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
(
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk .
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
) .
,G:IPlanning\2007\P A07~048 Temecula 84 GP A IPlauningIDRAFT PC Reso GP A.doc
'6
en
e
:l
C
III en
0::
-='
f"
G> C
C III
~..J
.
.
en
..
>
1S
..
'is
o
-
C
.2
-
a.
'l:
u
::
c
.
.
C
o
~
o
..J
C
III
ii:
u
l;:
oil
..
a.
o
I!!
:I
-
.:1
IL.
.
;;!;
~
a.
~
ffi
i[
_ <)
...Jij::
. '0
"'
a.
W
c: "'
<11-
0::9
en
<) Ul
= 0
130-
8..;
0<11
<O~
e ~
.- Ul
S-CUc:
Q)~cu
.:: .~ a:
o-U
c:UJq::
(I) ::J .-
eD -g g
o .- a.
"'C--""(I)
~<II
en '0 co
J:~-
1l.",0
_Eca
.?;> E 1;.
a.8~
g. ~
(/) ~ca
-=om
J!! ::J .:
.- -::J
g-gc-
J:o .-.; ~
Ul-
0i31~
5 ::J.G)
"in ~ ~
Ul'<:..,
.!!OQ)
~ _.~
Il.<cE
~j
.Q5 a..
-'"'
Ul'"
"' C
"fic"'
C
.- ..,
3: C
<II
aI
aI
.C
<II
i[
u
!E
u
..
a.
W
l!?
I .a
"
IL.
C--"'-
-='
G>..J ill
.a. aI .
"'01
..JU:
.
.--. ..-..~
ATTACHMENT NO.5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-_
(TENTATIVE TRACT MAP)
G:IPlanning\2006\PAlJ6..0370 PHSTentative Map (TTM35181 )IPlanninglPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
17
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE' CITY OF i'EMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA06-o370, A TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP (TIM 35181) TO SUBDIVIDE 84 ACRES INTO FIVE
PARCELS, FOUR DEVELOPABLE LOTS AND ONE
SLOPE AND EASEMENT PARCEL, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF DENDY PARKWAY AND
WINCHESTER ROAD (APN 909-370-018 AND 909-370-
. 032)
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A.' On December 12, 2006, The Garrett Group filed Planning Application No.
PA06-0370, (Tentative Tract Map), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula
. General Plan and Development Code.
B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on September 5, 2007, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
D. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-Q370
subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findinas. . The Planning Commission, in approving the
Application hereby finds, determines and declares that:
Section 16.09.140 (Tentative Mac)
, A. The. proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the
subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, and the City of
TeineciJla Municipal Code; .
. Tentative Tract Map No; 35181 is consistent with the General Plan, the
Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and MuniciparCodebecause the
project has been designed in ~ manner that is consistent with the policies and
standards in the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Development Code, and
Municipal Code. . .
. G:\PIanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (ITM3S181)\PlanninglPClDRAFr PC Rcso TIM.doc
. I
B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a
contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the
land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following
division of the land will not be too small to sustain agricultural use;
The subject parcels do not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The
sul)ject property has not been designated for conservation or agricultural land
and is not subject to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development proposed by the Tentative Map;
The site is physically suitable for the proposed industrial development because
the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code.
The proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM 35181) meets the minimum lot size
requirements contained within the Development Code, and is consistent with all
of the requirements found within City of Temecula General Plan and the City of
Temecula Subdivision Ordinance. The subdivision (TTM 35181) is therefore
consistent with the Light Industrial zone.
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
Conditions of Approval' are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or
sUbstanti;:llly and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
The proposed project site does contain sensitive habitat. The project impacts will .
be mitigated to a level of insignificance based upon the identified mitigation
measures and the Conditions of Approval and will not therefore cause significant
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their
habitat.
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely
. to cause serious public health problems; .
The project, as conditioned by the Fire. PreVention Bureau, the Public Works
Department, and the Building and Safety Department, will comply with the
applicable improvement requirements designed to prevent serious public health
problems. . Furthermore; provisions are made in the General Plan and the
Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are
. safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents.
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
Prior to any issuance of building permits for the subject subdivision, and prior to
. any construction, the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the
City of Temecula Building Department. These plans will be required to comply
. with all applicable Uniform Building Codes, which also include requirements for.
G:IPIanning\2006\PA~370 PHS Tentative Map (TI'M3S181)IP1anninglPClDRAFf PC Reso TIM.doc
2
energy conservation. Therefore, the construction plans will comply with all
applicable building codes and State energy guidelines.
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not
contlict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements
which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be'
provided;
The required right-of-way easements, including the future Western Bypass and
Cherry Street alignments, are included on the Tentative Tract Map (TTM 35181).
The City has reviewed these easements and the design of alternate easements,
and determined the type of improvements will not conflict with the easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's' parkland dedications
requirements (Quimby);
The subdivision is consistent with the dedication requirement.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission hereby
makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the
approval of the Tentative Tract Map No. 35181, (PA06-0370):
A. . Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), City staff
prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
Tentative Tract Map (TTM 35181) as described in the Initial Study ("the Projecr).
Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that there was no
substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.
B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period
and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law. The
public comment period commenced on August 4,2007, and expired on September 3,
2007. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at
the offices of the Department of Planning, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, Califomia92590. .
C. Three' written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a
response to all the cOmments made therein was prepared, submitted to the 'Planning
. Commission and incorporatedintd the administrative record of the proceedings.
. . D. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative.
Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prior'to and at the date public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds
that: (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2)
there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the
G:\PIanning\2006\PA06-ll370 PHS Tentative Map (ITM3S181 )\Plaiming\PC\DRAFf PC Reso TIM.doc
. 3
environment; and (3) the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.
E. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the Planning
Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project.
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
approves Planning Application No. PA06-0370, a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 35181) to
subdivide 84 acres into five lots, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on
ExhibitA, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
G:\PIanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TIM35 181 )\PlanninglPClDRAFr PC Reso TIM.doc
4 .
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the. City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 5th day of September 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 Resolution No. 07-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th
day of September 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: .
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\P1anningl2006\P A06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TIM35181 )\PlanninglPClDRAFT PC Reso TTM.doc
5
EXHIBIT A.
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
.i"
G:\Plaoningl2006\P A06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TIM35 181)\Planning\PC\DRAFf PC ResoTrM.doc
. 6
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA06-0370
Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map (TIM 35181) to subdivide 84 gross
acres into five parcels, four developable lots and one
easement parcel for slope and drainage purposes. The
. project site is located at the northwest corner of Dendy
Parkway and Winchester Road
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-370-018 and 909-370-032
MSHCP Category: Per Development Agreement
DIF Category: Per Development Agreement
TUMF Category: Per Development Agreement
Approval Date: September 5, 2007
Expiration Date: September 5, 2010
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Eight
Hundred Sixty-Four Dollars ($1,864.00) which includes the One Thousand Eight Hundred
Dollar ($1 ,800.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty-
Four Dollar ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to fiie.the Notice of
Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code
Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said 48-hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as
required above, the approval for the project. granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
G:IPlannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlanningIPClDraft COA PA06-0370.doc
1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:IPlannlng\2006IPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlannlnglPC\Drafl COA PA06-0370.doc
2
-
Planning Department
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final Conditions of Approval that will be provided
by the Planning Department staff, and retum one signed set to the Planning Department for
their files.
3. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of Califomia Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 60 days prior to the expiration date.
4. 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, direcUy or indirecUy,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, conceming the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall prompUy notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
5. The approval granted by this Resolution shall become effective upon the Effective Date of
the Development Agreement, as the term Effective Date is defined in the Development
Agreement adopted concurrently with this Resolution.
6. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a Dhasina Dlan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director.
7. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to the Garrett/PHS
Development Agreement (PA07-0220).
8. All lots created by TTM35181 shall be developed as identified in the Development
Agreement (PA07-0220).
9. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program.
10. A Specific Plan, consistent with Development Agreement (PA07-0220) shall be submitted
prior to the approval of any development plans for Lots 1. 2, or 3 created by TTM 35181.
Public Works Department
11. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
G:\Plannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\Planning\PClDraft COA PA08-0370.doc
3
12. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
13. 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.
14. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for
consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of T emecula mylars.
15. The provisions for the design, improvement, lot configuration, public facility financing and the
following conditions of approval are predicated on the approval and full execution of a
Development Agreement between Temecula Properties, LLC and the City on or about
September 25,2007.
Fire Prevention Bureau
16. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
Califomia Building Code (CBC), Califomia Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
17. 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).
18. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2"
outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be
located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
,road(s) frontage to 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).
19. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to, any building construCtion (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2).
Community Service Department
20. The Applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
21. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
G:IPlannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tenla1lve Map (TTM35181 )IPlannlnglPClDrafl COA PA06-0370.doc
'4
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
G:lPlannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)lPIannlngIPCIDraft COA PA06-0370.doc
5
Planning Department
22. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
ii. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and is on file
at the City of Temecula Planning Department.
iii. This project is within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone.
iv. This project contains sensitive cultural resources.
;
23. The %-acre of cultural site CA-RIV 237 located in the northeast comer of Planning
Application 06-0370 shall be preserved in Open Space and recorded with the County
Recorder of Riverside County as a conservation easement for preservation purposed in
perpetuity. The %-acre of CA-RIV 237 shall not be subject to development, archeological
testing or ground-disturbing activities.
24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Development Agreement (PA07 -0220)
prior to Final Map recordation.
Public Works Department
25. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Rancho California Water District
c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
e. Planning Department
f. Department of Public Works
g. Riverside County Health Department
h. Time Warner
i. Community Services District
j. Verizon
k. Southern California Edison Company
I. Southern California Gas Company
m. Fish and Game
n. Anny Corps of Engineers
G:lJ>laMlngI2006IJ>ACJ6.0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )lJ>lanninglJ>ClDraft COA PAQ6.0370.doc
6
26. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements
to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works:
a. Winchester Road (Major Arterial Standards - 100' R1W) between Dendy Parkway
and the southem project boundary plus transition to include dedication of half-width
street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, painted median, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
b. Dendy Parkway (Major Arterial Standards - 100' R1W) between Winchester Road
and the eastem project boundary plus transition to include dedication of half-width
street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, painted median, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. Remington Avenue (Industrial Collector Highway Standards - 78' R1W) to include
dedication of full width street right-of-way, installation of full width street
improvements, curb and gutter, sidewalk, painted median, street lights, drainage
facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
d. Remington Avenue and Winchester Road intersection to include a stop control on
the eastbound leg of Remington Avenue for an all-way stop controlled intersection
and a striped 200-foot northbound left tum,pocket. In addition, secure with a cash
deposit to include a year 2009 traffic analysis to determine traffic signal warrants and
. a fair share contribution for the design and installation of a traffic signal.
e. Cherry Street (Major Arterial-100' R1W)
i. Dedication of half-width street right-of-way.
f. Westem Bypass Corridor (Major Arterial - 100' R1W)
i. Dedication of full-width street right-of-way plus an easement for slope
construction, maintenance and drainage purposes.
g. . All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
27. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over AC. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
. accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400
and 401.
e. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
. project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
g. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
. G:IPlannlngl2OO6lPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PIanningIPC\Draft COA PA06-0370.doc
. 7
h. All knuckles shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 602.
i. All cul-de-sacs shall be constructed in accordance in City Standard No. 600.
j. Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
k. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
I. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
28. A construction phase Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
29. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Winchester Road on the Final Map.
Specific access openings will be determined through the Development Plan process as
stated in the Development Agreement.
30. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Dendy Parkway on the Final Map. Specific
access openings will be determined through the Development Plan process as stated in the
Development Agreement.
31. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Remington Avenue on the Final Map.
Specific access openings will be determined through the Development Plan process as
stated in the Development Agreement.
32. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Cherry Street on the Final Map. Specific
access openings will be determined through the Development Plan process as stated in the
Development Agreement.
33. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from the Western Bypass Corridor on the Final
Map. Specific access openings will be determined through the Development Plan process
as stated in the Development Agreement.
34. Comer property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities
. shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
35. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until.the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
36. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City
Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
37. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
G:\Plannlng\2006\P~370 PHS Tentative Map (TThl35181 )IPlannlnglPClDrafl COA PA08-0370.doc
8
38. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final
Map to delineate identified environmental concems and shall be recorded with the map.
39. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
40. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
41. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV standards at time of street improvements.
42. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map.
43. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on t!1e final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept
free of buildings and obstructions. "
G:\P1annlng\2006IPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PIanninglPClDrafl COA PA06-0370.doc
9
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:\PIaMing\2OO61PAlMHI370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PIanning\PC\Draft COA PAlMHI370.doc
10
Planning Department
44. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
45. The recommendations contained in soils report(s), geotechnical report, and slope stability
report shall be implemented.
46. Both Federal Clean Water Sections 404 and 401 permits and a 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement are required. Copies of all required permits shall be provided to the City prior to
the start of construction and comply fully with all of the terms and conditions of those permits
and agreement.
47. Impacts to jurisdictional areas will be mitigated at least a 1:1 ratio through off-site creation or
purchase of wetland credits within an approved wetland mitigation bank.
48. Impacts to upland habitats and associated species will be addressed through participation in
the MSHCP and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees. The project is
located within the Riverside County Stephens' kangaroo rat HCP Fee Assessment Area fee
area.
49. A pre-construction burrowing owl survey is required 30 days prior to commencement of
construction. If any burrowing owl is found on site, the CDFG shall be consulted, and a
passive relocation effort shall be undertaken outside of the nesting season. No disturbance
of active nests will occur.
50. A qualified biologist shall determine if any active raptor nests occur within the limits of
disturbance prior to commencement of grubbing, clearing, or grading activities.
51. No brushing, clearing, or grading shall occur within 500 feet of occupied tree-nesting raptor
habitat during the raptor breeding season (typically December to July).
52. In order to ensure MBT A compliance, clearing of native vegetation shall occur outside the
breeding season of most avian species (February 1 through September 15) unless a pre-
construction nesting bird survey determines that no nesting birds are present. The City of
Temecula would need to approve activities after concurrence is received from the wildlife
agencies.
53. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at hislher sole discretion may require the
property to deposita sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an 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."
G:\Planning\2006\PAO~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTh135181 )\PlanninglPClDraft COA PA~370.doc
11
54. The project proponent shall enter into a Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseiio Indians. This agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural
resources and human remains that may be uncovered during construction as well as
provisions for tribal monitors.
55. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be allowed to monitor all
grading, excavation and ground-breaking activities, including further surveys, to be
compensated by the project proponent. The Pechanga Tribal monitors shall have the
authority to temporarily stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the significance of any
archaeological resources discovered on the property, in conjunction with the archeologist
and the Lead Agency.
56. A qualified archaeologist monitor shall be present during all earthmoving activities. The
monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction work in the vicinity of
the find until it can be evaluated by the project archaeologist in conjunction with the
Pechanga Tribe. In the event of a new find, further testing, excavation, and/or reporting may
be required.
57. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries),
all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives
of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and
make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation.
58. If human remains are encountered, all activity shall cease and the County Coroner must be
notified immediately. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 state that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of the origin and
until treatment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 has been decided. The
Coroner shall determine if the remains are prehistoric, and shall notify the State Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) if applicable. Further actions shall be determined
pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
59. The landowner shall agree to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all
Luiseiio sacred items, burial goods and all archeological artifacts that are found on the
project site to the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition.
60. All sacred sites within the project area are to be avoided and preserved.
61. Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training (a 15-minute presentation) should be required for all
project personnel.
62, All impacts to the sandstone and fanglomerate members of the Pauba Formation should be
monitored full time at the beginning of grading. A trained paleontological monitor shall be
present during ground disturbing activities within the project area determined likely to contain
paleontologiCal resources. Monitoring will be adjusted to spot checking if initial monitoring
shows negative results.
63. Upon encountering any significant fossils, salvage of all fossils in the area will be conducted
with additional field staff and in accordance with modem paleontological techniques.
64. Any significant fossils recovered shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification.
Excess sediment or matrix will be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost
G:\PIanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\Planning\PC\Draft COA PA06-0370.doc
12
of storage. Itemized catalogs of all material collected and identified shall be provided to the
museum repository along with the specimens.
65. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and any salvage activities and the
significance of the fossils shall be prepared.
66. Any significant fossils recovered, along with the itemized inventory of the specimens, shall
be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.
Public Works Department
67. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Riverside County Health Department
f. Community Services District
g. General Telephone
h. Southern California Edison Company
i. Southern California Gas Company
68. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Ternecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
69. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to 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, cut and fill slopes and preliminary pavement sections.
G:lPlannlng\2006\PA06-0070 PHS Tenlative Map (TTM35181 )\PlannlnglPClDraft COA PA08-0370.doc
13
70. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults, slope stability and potential for liquefaction. The report shall
include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
a. Based on geologic relationships and observations, the site lacks evidence to support
the existence/presence of Holocene faulting (i.e. broken soil horizon or shear
planes). The building site area is not traversed by an active fault that would affect
the stability of the cut slope proposed or the building structure. A certified
engineering geologist shall perform regular field reconnaissance during site
earthwork construction. This field mapping is intended to further evaluate site
conditions and limit the possibility that adverse conditions will be exposed that could
affect site stability.
71. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the
site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage
facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall
capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property.
The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any
upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall
be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall
be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
72. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading,
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's
standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control.
73. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for
Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number
(WDID) 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.
74. 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.
75. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order,prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid. Provide receipt of paid Area Drainage Plan fees
from the County.
76. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
G:\Plannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\P1anninglPClDraft COA PA06-0370.doc
14
77. 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.
Fire Prevention Bureau
78. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on-site fire hydrants are required (CFC 903.2).
79. 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).
80. 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).
81. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1).
82. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
83. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4).
84. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1).
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )lPIanning\PCIDrafI COA PA06-0370.doc
15
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
G:IPlannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )IPlannlnglPClDraft COA PA06-0370.doe
18
-..-' ...--..-
Planning Department
85. The applicant shall file and receive approval of a Development Plan for all future
development within the subject parcels.
86. Landscape plans shall be prepared for all slopes created by the grading and fill of the site
consistent with 'Slope Planting Guidelines' and the Development Code, and shall provide
erosion control on undeveloped portions of the site.
87. Landscape plans for Parcel 4 shall include the off-site slopes created by the development of
Parcel 4 (including but not limited to the slopes proposed within Parcel 2 and the detention
basin proposed within Parcel 1). All landscaping shall be installed and maintained in
satisfactory condition by the property owner.
Public Works Department
88. Final Map 35181 shall be approved and recorded.
89. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
90. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Califomia Building Code. the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
91. A paved emergency vehicle access shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the Fire Marshall.
92. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
93. The Developer shall pay to the City the Westem Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with. Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
Fire Prevention Bureau
94. The developer shall fumish 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. Hydraulic calculations are
required for fire flow with the submittal. Once the plans have been approved by the fire
department the plans get picked up from the fire department, mylars are made and they are
then signed by the local water company, the mylars shall be presented to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for final signatures. After all the signatures are obtained a bond copy shall be
submitted back to the fire department. Once the fire department received this final copy the
permit job card will be released. The permit job card indicates all the inspections that are
required by the fire department. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
G:\PIannIng12OO6\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlannlnglPClDraft COA PA06-0370.doc
17
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).
G:\PIannlng\2OO6\PAlJ6..0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PIanning\PC\Draft COA P~370.doc
18
95. All locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle
access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall
of the building{s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed
for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC sec 902).
96. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three
sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention
Bureau.
97. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets
of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
98. Fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface (CFC
Appendix II-A).
99. A full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998
CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA-13, 24, 72 and 231-C.
Community Service Department
100. The developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison
Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting
into the TCSD maintenance program.
101. The developer shall make arrangements with the franchised hauler to dispose of the
construction debris.
G:IPlanningl2OO6\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlanningIPClDrall COA PA08-0370.doc
19
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS
G:\Plannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS TenlaUve Map (TTM35181 )\PIanning\PC\Drafl COA PA06-0370.doc
20
Planning Department
102. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
Fire Prevention Bureau
103. "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3).
104. 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 and industrial
buildings 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).
105. 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).
106. 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).
107. 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).
108. 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).
109. 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.
110. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform
Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The
storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or
modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all
of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity
class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains,
Fire Department.access doors and Fire department access roads (CFC Article 81).
G:\PIannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Ten1ative Map (TTM35181 )\P1annlnglPC\Draft COA PA06-0370.doc
21
111. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions Califomia Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards (CFC Article 81).
112. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground
tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous
materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3
and 8001.3). .
113. 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. Altemative file formats may be acceptable,
contact fire prevention for approval.
114. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the City; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II-E).
115. If there are changes to underlying maps then prior to map recordation the applicant shall
submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County
standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline infonnation. The
electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in
a State Plane NAD 83 (Califomia Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the
data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition.
116. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105).
G:IPlannlng\2006IPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PIannlnglPC\Draft COA PA06-0370.doc
22
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
G:IPlannlng\20061PP.lllMl370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlannlngIPClDraft COA PA06-0370.doc
23
117. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated December 27,2006, a copy of which is attached.
118. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated December 19, 2006, a copy of which is attached.
119. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Pechanga Cultural
Resources comment letter dated December 22, 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.
Applicanfs Signature
Date
Applicanfs Printed Name
G:IPlannlng\2OO6\P~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTh135181 )\PIannlnglPC\Draft COA PA0EHl370.doc
24
@
Bancha
later
BoudofDirectors
BeD a. Drake
President
8tephea J. Coro.i:&a
Sr. VICe Presideat
......~H.....",
u.a D. BenDall
......B............
......... B.1kMJJlaa
William. Eo PlUmmer
0""""
Brlan I. Bracb'
"-""-
PbiIIip L FOI'bN
Assi.staDt General Mauger /
CbiefFiDanc:i.al 0f6c:eI'
E. P. "Bob" Lemoas
-..-.
...... B. ........
DiNdorofPIumiDg
,Jeff D. AnDstroaI'
..,......,..,. .
J<oOl E. .......
--...."
c.....",...........
~ae.c AKdeprUP
0e....J """"'"'
December 27, 2006
,-'--"
iO- :;
i..j.!
J ,-'~
. .:.
t i ~: ~
'.} 'L
...m .-~'^-- ~.:; n .
:__ t
-, .,';.-='. ""',
,---': .
L~:.=1 P -
\:
;: .I
I,., "
''3\ ___'<-.~~""""''''--' ,"
~l;:'..i;,,;:-::': . "._,.,.
Dana Schuma, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY
PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY
PARCEL NO.4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 35181
APN 909-370-018 AND APN 909-370-032
CITY PROJECT NO. P A06-0369, PA06-0370
[TEMECULA PROPERTIES, LLC]
Dear Ms. Schuma:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD), imd fronts an existing
12-inch diamet~r water pipeline, and 8-inch diameter sewer pipeline. Waterand
sewer service; therefore, would be available upon the .completion of financial
arrangements.,t>etween RCWD and the property owner.
If new facilities are required for fire protection or other, the customer will need to .
contact RCWD for fees and requirements.
In addition, water availability is contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water mllnagement rights, if any, to RCWD.
.If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHOCALIFORNIAW ATERDISTRICf
~~.
CoreyF. Wallace, P.E. ...
Development Engineering MliDager
cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
. 06\CW:all35\FEG
, '. : . RaachoCaUtondaWaterDiStrict . -',... . ".
421.MW'mcbesterRoad -, PostOf6oe BoK 9017 . Temecala.CaIi!omia92589-9011 . (951)296-6900 . FAX(95l)296-6860
-------~_.--_.
-"--"'-.
EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL ~ESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0418
(951) 827-5745 - Fax (951) 827-5409 - eickw@ucr.edu
Inyo, Mono, and Riverside Counties
December 19, 2006
TO: Dana Schum a
City of Temecufa Planning Department
RE: Cultural Resource Review.
Case: PA 06-0369/DP/PHS and PA 06-0370/TPM/PHS
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known
culwral resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase
I study is recommended. .
~ Phase I cultural resource studies (RI-3279, 4258, and 6280) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature
of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources Is not antiCipated. Further
study is not recommended. . .
A Phase I cultural resource study (RI-
recommended.
) Identified no cultural resources.. Further study is not
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during construction, cuitural resources are encountered; work should be halted or diverted in the immediate
area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological senSitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a
professional archaeologist. .
~ The submiSSion of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for
Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation,
Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989.
Phase I
. . Phase II
. Phase III
-'Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource Significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.]
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.)
Monitor earthmoving activities
COMMENTS: ".
The project area has beeilgenerally examined in the course of several previous studies (RI-112.1, 3279,
.4258, and 6280), resulting in the recordation of three archaeoiogical sites (CA-RIV-0237, -4786, and-
4986) and identification of possibly a fourth cultural resources property (not formally recorded [RI-6280]).
It is recommended that the four sites be re-Iocated; their condition assessed, and a plan developed as
necessary to evaluate. the potential significance of these cultural resources,
. . If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
ChairpeOOn:
Germaine Arenas
PECHANGA CULTURAL IlliSOURCe;s
Temeeu/a Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians
Vice Chairperson:
Mary Bear Magee
Comminee-Membcrs:
Raymond Basquez. Sr.
Evic Getbe-r
D4r1ene Miranda
Bridgett Barcello Maxwcll
Post Office. Box 2183. Temccula. CA 92593
Telepbono (951) 308-'1295 . FlU (951) 506-9491
December 22, 2006
Director:
Gmy DuBois
SENT VIA.FACSIMlLE AND. E~MAIL
Coordinator.
Paul Mac8rro
Cult~1 ,Analyst
S1eplwli< Gordin
Mon. Supervisor.
Aura;. Manulfo
Dana Schuma, Project Planner
CityofTemeclila.
PlanningDcpartment
POBox. 9033
Temecula, CA 92589~9033
Re: Comments OD PA,06-0369/PA06-o370
Dear Ms. Schuma:
This comment tcucr. rs5Ubmiited by the .Pechallga Bafidof Luiselio Indi1lns (be~inafter.
"Peohanga Tribe"), a fcderaUy .reGO~ Indi!lD tribe lIlld $Qve~gov~ent Wt:'r<<!uestlblit
ibis letter and all of the Tribe's comments be p/lftof $e officilill.l1ICQrd fGr ~ea-pp(p'V4I pftl,lis
Pfoject. We also request ~ dlc Clty (jftemcoulaprovide lis with CQpi~ of an litclleoiogieal
. studies. repotts, site records. proJlOsed tcstingpfa/lll. andJll'9POSildinitigationm~lires, Gind
I conlljtions .as soon as. the)' bcCQineaW.iJable. We are also ~uestingtha.ttheTtIbe be oll$e1Jlllilillg
list for this Project sotlultwe ~ive all notices; pub1ic ~cnts..am1 hcaritlg llOtioespertaiiiingto
this Project. ...
ThcPecba11gll Tribe is ~!l~gjo bll..,CQnSl4~ witboo.1he.8hove l~pmJeeI$.!Ina WOo
have been !I~emptlti.w get mo~mt'OfII1atiol'l from theiCity.Plannerso _we9(Ul,~~ wj;~;
. commcnts,buth!lVll recclved 1)0 lllllpQnSC. Althi$ tUne ihc: 'tribe lllldemandnhanhe Ptc)jeCtS still
will go througflllll enViromnei1la1 review~, As ~\1h.. tb:l' Ttt~ ~ ~~, pQl$lllllll 19.
g2l(~83.1 oflh", Pulllic ~~ Code to beinv~lved futhls PtiiceSS.inolildingreqjlestiligrtoticedf
. all cOmment periodS lII1dpubficllejlnngs.. lf~. l'roJe\'tswiU llorbe~ect to.~A, either
. pursuant toa CEQA ExtIIiption or fOr lioInIl other 1'elISOI4t1ie Th"be ~uest8;l9meet vdlh tI1eClty .
regarding our co=s prior to any gradingpennitS bOing~.tbr ~Projects.
PROOECT.JMP~rocVL'l'liftAtRES()~
I
I
I
. . .
. .
. .
As'theCityisaw~,lbeJ,'Ci$a Slgnlt1Catlt8l'lll1CotogicalanaCUltlii'alvm88l'.~primatt1y'
asCA-RlV 237, (oeated oil the ProJect property. Thissit'eisknown tocol)~~"and
~tive American humantOOlamsand has been deslgnated With an avOidalieestatils by the City on
. prevIous projeciS.Previousdevelopershave alSo ~. to leave Certain ~ of~ viilage
preserved in open space. There are alSo other detailsconceming-theresoll~ that1he Cnyneeds to
be aware of prior. to proceeding with any. Project approval fbrthis ge()gtaphic.iU'ea. The Tribe
Sacred Is The DUly TnlSted Unto Our Care And With Honor m,-Ri~e to The.Need
_.~,--.-~-~~
Pechanga Letter dated 1212212006, to City ofTemecula
Re: Comments on PA06-o369/PA06-0370
Page 2
fonnally requests to meet with the City concerning these issues prior to these Projects receiving any
approvals.
The Pechanga Tribe is not opposed to this development project. The Pechanga Tribe's
primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native American cultural resources. The
Pechanga Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resourees,
such as Luiseilo village sites and archaeological items which may be displaced by ground-disturbing
work on the project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American
human remains and sacred items that may be discovered in the course of the work.
: The Pechanga Tribe believes that if hUman remains are discovered, State law would apply
and the mitigation measures for the permit must account for this. . According to the California Public
Resourees Code, ~S097.98, if Native American human remains are discovered, the Native American
Heritage commission must name a "most likely descendant," who shall be consulted as to the
i appropriate disposition of the remains. Given the Project's ll>C3tion in Pechenga, territory, the
I Pechenga Tribe intends to assert its right pursuant to California law with regard to any remains or
I, items discovered .in the course of this project. The Agreement mentioned above wl>i1ld also address
, Native American hUman remains as well.
,
i
I
,
I
-<1
The Pechanga Tribe has a legal and cultural interest in the proper protection of sacred places
and all Luiseno cultural resources that are .Iooated on these Project properties. Given that Luiseflo
culturalresourees may be affected by the Project, the Pechanga Tribe is formally requesting to be
involved and participate with the Lead Agency and the Project Applicant in developing all
. monitoring and mitigation plans for the duration of the Project. Further, given the potential for
. archaeological resourees within the Project area, it is the position of the Pechanga Tribe that
Pechanga tribal monitors should be required to be present during all ground-disturbing activities if
such activities are conducted in native soils that have previously not been subject to mass grading,
including any archeological testing performed. It is further the position of the Pechanga Tribe that an
Agreement regarding appropriate treatment of cultilral resources be drafted and entered into by and
between the Project Applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will also address inadvertent
i discoveries and the issues with regard to the existing resources on the Project property. The
I Pechanga Tribe also requests that all existing sacred sites on the Project property be preserved. .
I
I
j
I
j
!
i
!
.. i
!
!
LaStly, in the case of discovery of new or additional sites or resources, the PeChanga Tribe
, requests that all new sacred sites be preserved, and that the Lead Agency commit to re-evaluatingthe
, Project impacts to cultural resourees and adopting appropriate mitigation' measures to address such
inadverttllt discoveries.' The Pechanga Tribe intends to assert.its legal rights with.respect .to, .
.additional finds of significant sites or cultural resources which are of sacred and ceremonial .
significance to the Pechanga Tribe. '.
. ThePechanga Tribe looks forwilrdto working together with the City ofTerilecula Planning
Department and other interested agencies in protecting the invaluable Luisefio cultural resources
j
i
.,.)
! ..
,
Pechanga Cultural Resources' Temecula Band ofLuisiiio Mission b,dians
Post Office Box 2183' Temeculo, CA 92592
Sacred Isn,e Duty Trusted Vlllo OUI' Co,.. Alld With Honor We Rise To The Need
Pechanga Letter dated 1212212006, to City of Temecula
Re: Comments on PA06-03691PA06-0370
Page 3
found in the Project area. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to Contact me at (951)
308-9295.
Please contact me as soon as possible to set up a meeting time concerning the Tribe's issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
I
I
I
Sincerely,
~ ~<~-P
I
i
I
I
j Cc:
j
I
I
I
I
pale Fos!er
Cultural Analyst
Debbie UbnO$I<:e. Glo/P1l!MingDitector
David Hogan, Cltyl'lanningDeJlliifn\ent
l'eehanga Legal ~ent
c
I
.
!
\
i
.
I
!
I
I
I
I
t
. Pecilanga Cultural Resources' Temecula Band of Luisefio Missidn Indians
. Post OffICe Box 1183. Temecula, CA92591
Sacred 1s. The Duly Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise.Ta The Need
ATTACHMENT NO.6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-_
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
G:\Planning\2006\PAOEMl370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\Planning\PClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
18
PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NOS. PA06-0369 AND PA07-0090, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A THREE
STORY, 608,934 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL
DISTRIBUTION BUILDING AND A 400 SQUARE FOOT
PUMP HOUSE ON 32 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF DENDY PARKWAY AND
WINCHESTER ROAD, AND A MINOR EXCEPTION TO
ALLOW FOR A ONE PERCENT BUILDING HEIGHT
INCREASE FROM 50' TO 50'8" (APN909-370-018 AND
909-370-(32)
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On December 12 2006, The Garrett Group filed Planning Application No.
PA06-0369, (Development Plan), and on March 20, 2007, filed Planning Application No.
PA07-0090, (Minor Exception), in a manner in accord with the City of TemeculaGeneral
Plan and Development Code.
B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on September 5, 2007, at a duly noticed. public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
D. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application Nos. PA06-0369 and
PA07-0090 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occlirred.
Section 2. Further Findinas. . The Planning Commission, in approving. the
Application hereby finds, determines and declares that:
Develooment Plan (Develooment Code Section 17.05.010.F)
A. . The proposed use is in conformanCe with the General Plan for Temecula
and with all applicable requirem13nts of State law and other ordinances of the City;
The project is cansistentwiththe General Plan and the pevelopment Code
because the project has been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the
applicable policies and standards forlight industrial development. Theproposed
G:IPIanning\2006)PAO(j-()369 PHS Development PlanIPlanninglPClDRAFT PC.Reso DP & Minor Exc.doe
. 1
industrial use is permitted in the land use designation standards contained in the
General Plan and Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned,
and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements
of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare;
The overall design of the project, including site design, building height, setbacks,
parking, circulation, and other associated site improvements is intended to
protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project
is 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.
Soecial Use Reaulations and Standards. Increase in Floor Area Ratio (Development
Code Section 17.08.050.A.2)
A. The project includes a use which provides outstanding and exceptional
benefits to the City with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of
the community;
The project provides exceptional fiscal and economical benefits to the City in that
Professional Hospital Supply (PHS) is a major employer within the City, as well
as a large generator of sales tax revenue. PHS has experienced. substantial
growth and their continued growth and expansion within the City will help to meet
the fiscal and economic needs of the community. The proposed expansion site
requires a four percent floor area ratio increase for a state of the art distribution
facility and office headquarters large enough to accommodate future growth of
PHS operations. .
Minor Exception (Development Code Section 17.03.060.0)
A. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by strict
application of the code due to the physicalchart;lcteristics of the site;
There are practical difficulties related to the building construction and architecture
that make it difficult to meet the development standards for the Light Industrial
(LI) zone without the Minor Exception. In order to provide an appropriate ceiling
height for each of the office floors and visually screen roof top equipment the
cornice along the office portion. of the building must be50'B" in height, thus
reqUiring . a one percent building height increase to meet the development
. standards of the LI zone. Without the granting of the Minor Exception the
building would not meet the current standards, which poses a practical difficulty
and unnecessary hardship. .
G:IPlanning\2006IP A06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlanninglPClDRAFT PC Reso DP & Minor Exe.doe
2
B. The Minor Exception does not grant special privileges which are not
otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or the property of other persons located in the vicinity;
The Minor Exception does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise
available to surrounding properties because the exception is consistent with
Development Code, which allows for up to a 15 percent deviation from the LI
development standard. The request for the Minor Exception allows for the one
percent height increase of 8" and special privileges have not been granted which
are not otherwise available by meeting the findings within the Development
Code. The granting of this exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare
or property of other persons within the vicinity as the height increase is only for
the office portion of the building, which is only 14 percent of the entire building
footprint.
C. The Minor Exception places suitable conditions on the property to protect
surrounding properties and does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the
zone;
The Minor Exception to increase the building heightplaces suitable conditions on
the property to protect surrounding properties. The proposed project is for an
industrial building, which is permitted in the Light Industrial zone. The Minor
Exception will allow a one percent height increase, which will not allow for uses
which are not otherwise allowed in the zone.
Section 3. EnvironmentalComoliance. The Planning Commission hereby
makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the
approval of the Development Plan (PA06-0369) and Minor Exception (PA07-0090):
A. . Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), City staff
prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
Development Plan and Minor Exception as described in the Initial Study ("the Project").
Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that there was no
substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.
B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period
and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required bylaw. The
public comment period commenced on August 4, 2007, and expired on September 3,
2007. Copies ofthe documents have been available for public review and inspection at
the offices of the Department of Planning, located at City Hall; 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California 92590.
r
C. Three written comments were received prior to . the public hearing! and a
response to all the comments made therein was prepared; submitted to the Planning
Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings.
G:\PIanning\2006\PA06"'()369 'PHS Development Plan\Planning\PC\DRAFf PC Reso DP & Minor Exc.doc
3
... _. ___ ..v.
D. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prior to and at the date public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds
that: (1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2)
there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the
environment; and (3) the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.
E. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the Planning
Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project.
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
approves Planning Application Nos. PA06-0369 and PA07-0090, a Development Plan to
construct a 608,934 square foot, three story industrial distribution building on 32.1
acres, and a Minor Exception to allow for a one percent building height increase, subject
to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference. .
G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlanoingIPCIDRAFr PC Reso DP at Minor Exc.doc
. 4
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 5th day of September 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 Resolution No. 07"_ was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th
day of September 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:.
PLANNING. COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary .
O:IPlanning12OO61PA0<Hl369 PHS Development PlanlPlannmgWanRAFr PC Reso DP &: Minor Exc.doc
. 5
. ". -~" ,-
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
O:IPIanning\2006\P A06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlanninglPClDRAFT PC Reso DP & Minor Exc.doc
6
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA06-0369 and PA07.0090
Project Description:
A Development Plan application to construct a three
story, 608,934 square foot industrial distribution building
for office and warehouse use, a 400 square foot pump
house on 32 acres (Parcel 4 of TIM 35181), and a Minor
Exception to allow for a one percent building height
increase from 50' to 50'8", located on the northwest
corner of Dendy Parkway and Winchester Road
Assessor's Parcel No:
909-370-018; 909-370-032
MSHCP Category:
DIF Category:
TUMF Category:
Per the Development Agreement
Per the Development Agreement
Per the Development Agreement
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
September 5, 2007
September 5 2009
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Eight
Hundred and Sixty-Four Dollars ($1,864.00) which includes the One Thousand Eight
Hundred Dollar ($1,800.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(dX3) plus
the Sixty-Four Dollar ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice
of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required under Public Resources
Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said 48-
hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check
as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
. condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
G:lPtannlngl2006\PAOlHl369 PHS Development Plan\PIannln9IPC\DRAFT COA PAOlHl369.doc
1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:IPlannlng\2OO6\PA06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlannlnglPClDRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
2
Planning Department
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final Conditions of Approval that will be provided
by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for
their files.
3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, conceming the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. The pennittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this project.
5. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become
null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by
this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion,
or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
6. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within 30 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.
7.. A separate building pennit shall be required for all signage. (Sign program may be
required).
8. The development of the premises shall substantially confonn to the approved site plan and
elevations contained on file with the Planning Department.
9. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed
satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment,
finish or technique that City staff detennines to be the substantial equivalent of that required
by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which
case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the
decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
Material Color
Concrete Tilt-up Panels ICI 632 Sutton Place
ICI815 Natural White
ICI 606 Song Sparrow
G:\PIannlng\2006\PA06-0369 PHS Development Plan\P1anningIPClDRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
3
Parapet
Glazing
ICI815 Natural White
y." Gray
10. 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.
11. The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of the building for Planning Department
inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building.
12. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10"
glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored
architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be
readable on the photographic prints.
13. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These
shall be clear1y labeled on site plan.
Public Works Department
14. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or 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.
15. 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.
16. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
17. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent
post-constructionwater quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent
non-permitted runoff from discharging offsite or entering any storm drain system or receiving
water.
18. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be accepted by the City prior to the initial
grading plan check. The WQMP will be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and include
site design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment
mechanisms.
19. The provisions for the design, improvement, lot configuration, public facility financing and the
following Conditions of Approval are predicated on the approval and full execution of a
Development Agreement between Temecula Properties, LLC and the City on or about
September 25, 2007.
G:\PI.nnlng\2006\P~369 PHS Development P1an\PlannlnglPClDRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
4
- -.- -
Building and Safety Department
20. The code analysis shall be printed on the plans along with the letter from the Director of
Building and Safety, dated September 12, 2006.
21. 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.
22. The City of T emecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area
wide Transportation Unifonn Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on
March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building
permit issuance. The fees, if applicable to the project, shall be subject to the provisions of
Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
23. 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.
24. 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 School
Mitigation Fees.
25. Obtain all building plans and pennit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
26. Show all building setbacks.
27. Developments with Multi-tenant Buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house electrical
meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire
alann systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall
clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the
operation of exterior lighting and fire alann systems when a house meter is not specifically
proposed.
28. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
29. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans (California Disabled Access RegulaOons effective April 1 , 1998).
30. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
31... Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
33. 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 Ternecula Ordinance No. 94-21,
G:\PIannlng\2006\PAOEKl369 PHS Development PlanlPlannlnglPClDRAFT COA PAO~69.doc
5
.....- -~-..
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays
34. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
35. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review.
36. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
37. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
38. Please be advised of the 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.
39. Buildings shall provide a house electrical meter to provide for operation of exterior lighting,
irrigation pedestals, and fire alarm systems for each building on the site.
40. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Fire Prevention Bureau
41. 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.
42. 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 Flowas given above has
taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A).
43. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix lIIeB, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-sile (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2"
outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be
located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B).
G:\PIanning\2006IPAlJ6.0369 PHS Development PlanlPlannlnglPClDRAFT COA PAlJ6.0369.doc
6
44. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2).
Community Services Department
45. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
46. The Applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
47. All parkways, entry way median, landscaping, walls, fencing and on site lighting shall be
maintained by the property owner or maintenance association.
48. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler to verify Trash
compactor specifications and servicing requirements prior to purchase and installation of any
equipment.
G:lPtannlngI2OO6lPA06-0369 PHS Development P1anlPtannlnglPClDRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
7
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlanninglPClDRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
8
Planning Department
49. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electJical
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, subject to review and approval by the
Director of Planning.
51. The recommendations contained in soils report(s), geotechnical report, and slope stability
report shall be implemented.
52. The Applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department an erosion control plan prepared
in accordance with City requirements.
53. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at hislher sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
detennining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the
Director of Planning."
54. The project proponent shall enter into a Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseiio Indians. This agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural
resources and human remains that may be uncovered during construction as well as
. provisions for tJibal monitors.
55. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be allowed to monitor all
grading, excavation and ground-breakiilg activities, including further surveys, to be
compensated by the project proponent. The Pechanga Tribal monitors shall have the
authority to temporarily stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the significance of any
archaeological resources discovered on the property, in conjunction with the archeologist
and the Lead Agency.
56. A qualified archaeologist monitor shall be present during all earthmoving activities. The
monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction work in the vicinity of
the find until it can be evaluated by the project archaeologist in conjunction with the
Pechanga Tribe. In the event of a new find, further testing, excavation, and/or reporting may
be required.
57. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries),
all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives
G:lPlannlng\2006\PA06-0369 PHS Development P1anlPlannlng\PC\DRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
9
-.- -
of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find. and
make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation.
58. If human remains are encountered, all activity shall cease and the County Coroner must be
notified immediately. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 state that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of the origin and
until treatment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 has been decided. The
Coroner shall determine if the remains are prehistoric, and shall notify the State Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) if applicable. Further actions shall be determined
pursuant to Califomia Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
59. The landowner shall agree to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all
Luiseiio sacred items, burial goods and all archeological artifacts that are found on the
project site to the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition.
60. All sacred sites within the project area are to be avoided and preserved.
61. The %-acre of cultural site CA-RIV 237 located in the northeast comer of Planning
Application PA06-0370 shall be preserved in Open Space and recorded with the County
Recorder of Riverside County as a conservation easement for preservation purposed in
perpetuity. The %-acre of CA-RIV 237 shall not be subject to development, archeological
testing or ground-disturbing activities.
62. Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training (a 15-minute presentation) should be required for all
project personnel.
63. All impacts to the sandstone and fanglomerate members of the Pauba Formation should be
monitored full time at the beginning of grading. A trained paleontological monitor shall be
present during ground disturbing activities within the project area determined likely to contain
paleontological resources. Monitoring will be adjusted to spot checking if initial monitoring
shows negative results.
64. Upon encountering any significant fossils, salvage of all fossils in the area will be conducted
with additional field staff and in accordance with modem paleontological techniques.
65. Any significant fossils recovered shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification.
Excess sediment or matrix will be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost
of storage. Itemized catalogs of all material collected and identified shall be provided to the
museum repository along with the specimens.
66. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and any salvage activities and the
significance of the fossils shall be prepared.
67. Any significant fossils recovered, along with the itemized inventory of the specimens, shall
be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage.
G:lPlannJng\2OO6\PA06-0369 PHS Development PIan\PtanningIPClDRAFT COA PAlJ6.0369.doc
10
Public Works Department
68. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults, slope stability and potential for liquefaction. The report shall
include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
a. Based on geologic relationships and observations, the site lacks evidence to support
the existence/presence of Holocene faulting (I.e. broken soil horizon or shear
planes). The building site area is not traversed by an active fault that would affect
the stability of the cut slope proposed or the building structure. A certified
engineering geologist shall perform regular field reconnaissance during site
earthwork construction. This field mapping is intended to further evaluate site
conditions and limit the possibility that adverse conditions will be exposed that could
affect site stability.
72. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
73. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading,
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's
standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control.
74. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for
Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number
(WOlD) issued I?Y 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.
G:lPIanning\2006\PA06-0369 PHS Development P1anlPlanning\PC\DRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
11
75. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
76. 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.
77. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
78. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
79. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
80. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Fire Prevention Bureau
81. As required by the Califomia Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required (CFC 903.2).
82. Minimum outside tuming shall be forty-five (45) feet for commercial buildings.
83. 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. GW'J (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
84. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twehty"four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1).
85. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14).
86. 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:\PIannlngl2OO6\PA06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlannlnglPClORAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
12
87. Prior to building construction. this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1).
G:IPlanning\2006\P~369 PHS Development P1anlPlannlng\PC\DRAFT COA P~369.doc
13
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
G:\PIannlng\2006IPA06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlanninglPC\DRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
14
. -,".~,-_., .
Planning Department
88. 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.
89. Lighting within the proposed project adjacent to preserved habitat shall be of the lowest
illumination allowed for human safety and selectively placed, shielded, and directed away
from preserved habitat.
90. All downspouts shall be internalized on the office portion of the building. All downspouts for
the warehouse/distribution portion of the building shall be painted the same color as the
exterior of the building.
91. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved
conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number,
genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be
consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of T emecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all
parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area.
c. A note on the plans stating that "Two landscape inspections are required: one
inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for
final planting inspection."
d. A note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an
agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection."
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. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map.
i. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the
proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and
landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved
maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor
who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
j. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be
required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being
pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two (2) hours without loss of
pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-
head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the
approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the
Planning Department to schedule inspections.
G:IPlanning\2006IPAQ6..0369 PHS Development P1anlPlannlnglPC\DRAFT COA PAQ6..0369.doc
15
92. Plants selected for slope landscaping shall be light-weight, deep rooted type vegetations that
require little water and are capable of surviving with little irrigation.
93. Landscape plans shall be prepared for all slopes created by the grading and fill of the site
consistent with "Slope Planting Guidelines" and the Development Code, and shall provide
erosion control on undeveloped portions of the site.
94. Landscape plans for Parcel 4 shall include the off-site slopes created by the development of
Parcel 4 (including but not limited to the slopes proposed within Parcel 2 and the detention
basin proposed within Parcel 1). All landscaping shall be installed and maintained in
satisfactory condition by the property owner.
95. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project (including but not limited
to walls and parking areas).
96. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show
and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three foot clear zone
around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen.
Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like
an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on
plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees.
97. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened, or the views minimized, from all
existing and future public right-of-ways.
98. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to
trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, and hardscape) to match the style of the building
subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
99. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange:
100. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on
a nine-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals
shall be painted with a standard nine-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
101. Improvement plans and/or 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, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402.
G:\PIarming\2OO6\PA06-0369 PHS Development P1an\PfannlngIJ>C\DRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
16
e. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries.
f. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula's Standard
No. 113.
g. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
h. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades.
i. Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
102. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a. Winchester Road (Major Arterial Standards - 100' RfIN) between Dendy Parkway
and the southern project boundary plus transition to include dedication of half-width
street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, painted median, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
b. Dendy Parkway (Major Arterial Standards -100' RfIN) between Winchester Road
and the eastern project boundary plus transition to include dedication of half-width
street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, painted median, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. Remington Avenue (Industrial Collector Highway Standards - 78' RfIN) to include
dedication of full width street right-of-way, installation of full width street
improvements, curb and gutter, sidewalk, painted median, street lights, drainage
facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
d. Remington Avenue and Winchester Road intersection to include a stop control on
the eastbound leg of Remington Avenue for an all-way stop controlled intersection
and a striped 200-foot northbound left turn pocket. In addition, secure with a cash
deposit to include a year 2009 traffic analysis to detennine traffic signal warrants and
a fair share contribution for the design and installation of a traffic signal.
e. Cherry Street (Major Arterial- 100' RfIN)
i. Dedication of half-width street right-of-way
103. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions
per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections.
104. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in confonnance with
applicable City Standards and slibject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing and striping.
b. Stonn drain facilities.
c. Sewer and domestic water systems.
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
G:IPlannln9\2006IPA06-0369 PHS Developmant Plan\PlannlngIPC\DRAFr COA PA06-0369.doc
17
105. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of
Public Works.
106. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed
by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attomey and approved by City
Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property.
107. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
108. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 ofthe Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
109. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Unifonn
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
110. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
Fire Prevention Bureau
111. 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 confonn 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).
112. All locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle
access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall
of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed
for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC see 902).
113. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three
sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention
Bureau.
114. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. The alann
system requires a dedicated circuit from the house panel. Three sets of alann plans must be
submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
115. Fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
G:lPlann1ng\2006IPA06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlannlnglPC\DRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
18
approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface (CFC
Appendix II-A).
116. Plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to,
enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification
zones (CFC Appendix II-A).
Community Services Department
117. The developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison
Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting
into the TCSD maintenance program.
118. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
G:\PIannlng\2006IPA06-0369 PHS Development P1anIPlannlnglPClDRAFT COA PAO~369.doc
19
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0369 PHS Development Plan\P1annlnglPClDRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
20
Planning Department
119. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
120. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant
shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from
view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is
determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet
walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the
developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof
element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning.
121. 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.
122. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one
year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation
system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the
bond shall be released upon request by the applicant.
123. 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 Intemational 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."
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
G:lJ'lannlng\2006\PA06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlannlng\PC\DRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
21
Public Works Department
127. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP
have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for
immediate implementation.
128. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho Califomia Water District
b. Eastem Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
129. All public improvements, including traffic signals, shall be constructed and completed per the
approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
130. 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 Bureau
131. "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3).
132. 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).
133. 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).
134. 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).
135. 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).
136. 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 (CFC902.4).
137. 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.
G:\Plannlng\2006\PAO~369 PHS Development PlanlPlannlnglPClDRAFT COA P~369.doc
22
138. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform
Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The
storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or
modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all
of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity
class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains,
Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads (CFC Article 81).
139. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions Califomia Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards (CFC Article 81).
140. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground
tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous
materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3
and 8001.3).
141. 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. Altemative file formats may be
acceptable, contact Fire Prevention for approval.
142. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the City; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II-E).
143. If there are changes to underlying maps then prior to map recordation the applicant shall
submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County
standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The
electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in
a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI ) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the
data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition.
144. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105).
G:IPlannlng\2006IPAOM369 PHS Development PlanlPlanninglPClDRAFT COA PAOM369.doc
23
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
G:\Planningl2OO6\PAotHl369 PHS Development PlanlPlanninglPClDRAFT COA PAotHl369.doc
24
145. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of
Environmental Health transmittal dated January 17, 2007, a copy of which is attached.
146. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation setforth in the Rancho Water Districfs
transmittal dated December 27, 2006, a copy of which is attached.
147. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated December 19, 2006, a copy of which is attached.
148. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Pechanga Cultural
Resources comment letter dated December 22, 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.
Applicanfs Signature
Date
Applicanfs Printed Name
G:IPlannlng\2006IPA06-0369 PHS Development PlanlPlannlnglPClDRAFT COA PA06-0369.doc
25
o CvJNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEAUn: SERVICES AGENCY 0
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
January 17, 2007
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecu1a, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Dana Schuma
RE: Development Plan No. P A06-0369
J ~,t )rtH 1. 9
"v~_.,~_
:t~~'~;11i
'~'::"!,)('''lt,i)n,'-:i
Dear Ms. Schuma:
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the development plan to construct a three story,
615, 050 square foot tilt-up industrial building for office and warehouse used and 400 square foot
pump hoUse on 36.2 acres. The project is located on the northwest corner of Dendy Parkway and
Winchester Road. The site plan does indicate if either water and sewer services exist, we assume that
these services are in and are available.
1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING
SHOULD BE REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water district
b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets. ofp1ans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
Califomia Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food
Facility Plan Examiners at (951) 461.0284.
"
",!o" _. a-
.4-, .-"-~ -:~~_~'''I
",il.,
S . ez, Supervising
(951) 955-8980
NOTE: ~ cum:ut ~;""" ~ 1IOt"""",",_ be """_ at tioio of IluiJdiDgPIan _ Iin' final Dclplu1mcoil of
F.nVirciomom.l HoaJtb~. . .
.~
Local Enlor.ell!enIAgency" p.o, Box 1280, Riverside, CA 925<l2-1280 . (909) 955-8982 . FAX (9091 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 .'
. Luid: Uieand Water Englneeilng . P.O. Box 1206: Riverside; CA925<l2-1206 . (909) 955,8980. . FAX (9091.955,8903 . 4080 Lemon Slreet, 2nd Aoor, Riverside, CA 925(j1
@
Bancha
later
Board of Directors
Ben K. Drake
President
Stephen J. Corona
Sr. VICe President
IloIph II. Dan.
Iba D. Benaau
J_E._
M1cbae1 R. ..........
William. Eo Plliauaer
OfIicen:
BrianJ. .....",
Gon<<al_
Phillip L. Fortte.
Aaaistaat General'Manqer I
ChiefFinaDcisl 0f6cer
B. P. "Bob" Lemons
-,,-
......,. R. Loaok
-"-
JoIlD. """-
""""-
KeUl Eo .......
....... .........
C. MlchaoI ........
ae.t.. 6: Kdecer UP
lleaenI CounooI
(,
December 27, 2006
1--'"\ .~---,
i .,)J
1, '-:
U !~
~ .' \..
'~'.
.~;~ -_.,-~,~.,
r.t~;...n,;'
: ,-....!'-. ..,
Dana Schuma, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY
PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY
PARCEL NO. 4 ~NTATIVEPARCEL MAP NO. 35181
APN 909-370-018 AND APN 909-370-032
CITY PROJECT NO. PA06-0369, PA06-0370
[TEMECULA PROPERTIES, LLC]
Dear Ms. Schuma:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and fronts an existing
l2-inch diamet~r water pipeline, and 8-inch diameter sewer piPeline. Water and
seWer service, therefore, wol11d be available upon the completion of financial
arrangements,between RCWD and the property owner.
If new facilities are required for fire protection or other, the customer will need to
contact RCWD for fees and requirements. '
In addition, water availability is contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering serVices
Representative at this office. '
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA W ATERDISTRICf
H',W.'
. - . '.
'l
,Corey F. Wallace; P.E., '
Development Engineering Milnager
cc: ' Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supqvisor
06\CW:all3S\FEG
. . , '" Baocho _Califonda Wata- Dlstrid . . _ .
421S5W-udtester&.d . -PostOftkeBo:r.9017 . Temecula,Califomia92589-9017 . (951)296-G900 . FAX.-(951)296-MGO
._.___L_:..._._____
:) ,.,.....
,.; ..-
L:.:::li
,
I
f._...,'
.--.
,~
EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL ~ESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM
Department of Anthropology. University of California. Riverside. CA 92521-0418
(951) 827-5745 - Fax (951) 827-5409 - eickw@ucr.edu
Inyo, Mono, and Riverside Counties
December 19, 2006
TO: Dana Schuma
City of Temecula Planning Department
RE: Cultural Resource Review
Case: PA 06-0369{DP{PHS and PA 06-0370{TPM{PHS
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known
cultural resource(s). A Phase I study Is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase
I study is recommended. ' ,
'~ Phase'l cultural resource studies (RI-3279, 4258; and 6280) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature
of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further
study Is not recommended. '
A Phase I cultural resource study (RI-
recommended.
) Identified no cultural resources. Further study is not
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered; work should be halted or diverted in the immediate
area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations.
Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a
professional archaeologist.
..1L The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following gUidelines for
Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Hlstorl.c ,Preservation,
Preservarion Planning BulletIn 4(a), December 1989.
Phase I
. Phase II
, . Phase III
Phase IV
Records search and field survey , " '
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.)
Mitigation [Data recollery by excavation; preservation in place, or a combination of the two.]
Monitor earthmoving activities '
COMMENTS: '
The project area has been generally examinecllnthe course of several previous ~tudles (RI-1121, 3279,
4258, and 6280), resulting in the recordation of three archaeological sites ((A-RIV-023 7, ~4786, and -
4986) and Identification of possibly a fourth, cultural resources property (not formally recorded [RI-6280]).
It is recommended that the four sites be re-Iocatecl. their condition assessed, and a plan developed as
neces~ary to evaluate,the' potential significance of these cultural resources.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
ChairperSon:
Gcnnainc Arenas
F'ECHANGA CULTURAL IlliSOURCBS
Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians
ViCe Chairperson:
Mary Beai' Magee
C<nmniu<<Membcrs:
Raymond Basquez. Sr.
Evie Gerber
Darlene :Miranda
Bridgett Barcello Maxwell
Post Office. BOI( 21 SJ . Temccula. CA 92593
Telephone (95 I) 308-9295 . Fux (951) 5~9491
December 22, 2006
Director:
Gary DuBo~
SENT VIA.FACSlMlLE .{\.NJ>. E-MAIL
Coordinator.
Paul Maealto
Cull~1 Analyst
Stephanie Gordio
Dana Schuma, froject Planller
City ofTemectlla
PlanIling Departlllent
POBox 9033
Temecula, CA 92589"9033
Re:Comments onPA06-.0369IPA06-lJ370
MOJj~r_Supervisor.
Aurelia Mmull'o
near Ms. SchUma:
This O(Jmment letter illsutlmitted by the PeeluifillaBaJld :of Luiseilo Indians (hCfCinal'ter,
"PCcihanga Tribe"), a federally rooognized IndiantribelilidS<)v~ goveroment:Wl\-rClquCst Ibat
this letter and all of the Tribc'sC(illltnents be part of the official reO(Jrd for t!l~ li.PP\'lW41 of tQis
PfOjecf. We also request that the city oftCl\1eculaprovi~ Its with C(ipies ofliUatdieological
studies, repOrts, site records, pfOpOsed testing plans; and ptQpOsedltiftigation~s, aild
conditlohS as soon as ~ beC(illlea'Vliilable. We are alsO requeslillgthlitthe Trlbebe ()D. thelJlailing
listIor this Projeetsolbatwe l\lCeive all notices, public ciOOurnents,and bearingJll)tieespertaii\1ngto
this Project. ...
ThePecl1llllga Tribe i~ ~lI~$ring'tll be (lQD$t!I!l:<l witbllnth~abQv~ ll$'edJlroJects.IIUO W~
Mvll ~n aU!lmplill~ III got.moreififormiltioll ftotnthc;CityP1annerso that;wel.l8llpro~idf ~
connnents,buthavlllweive4 JIO~~. At this funec1be: TtibeUlldCi'StlliidSthatth!lPtQJet'lSstUl
will go thtougli an enVirbIlln!lntlil review ~,As~q9h, tb!l',l)ib!l'~ rI:lqll~llllltllanl tll.
~08:3.1 oftbe PcU,blic ~ Code: to be mvol>iedliithl$ prooess,lnoliliftngi'eq!lestiD$ltotieeof .
alloollllllel\t period$and publiclteliriggs.. If .~.lfulleQtswllJ not be$liltjllctto.<W;lA. e.ither .
pUrsllant. toa CEQAExeDipOon Ot fOr Some other reason. die nibe Nq\lests.to meet with the City
. regarding our concems prior to any gra4ing~its ooln8~fol"thll$eProjec1s.
PRG.JEcrJMP~mcVJ;.'l'tJfttiliRESOl1RC~.
.... . ..... AstheCityisaw_,iJreJ:'CisasfgniflcantamheQI!;)llfuallll\(fcultllraivlrla~.knOWhpritnatiiy .
· asCA.RlV Z37,locatedbttthePrOjeet propetty.This$l"feisknown .tol)QJ)~iIt~. ttcillilai1d .
I . Native American hUman retnlIillsand has been designated Witb an avoidariee stiitUs by the City on
previous projects. Previous qevelopershave. also agteedto leave. certain areas or the village
preserVed in open space. There are liloo other deiails C9nceming1heresou!'CCS that the Cltyneeds to.
be aware of prior to proceeding with any Project applVvill fur. this geo-8tllJihlc ilrea.The Tribe
Stured Is The DUly TrustedBnto Gllr Care And With Honor weRis-e To TileNeed
Pechanga Letter dated 12/22/2006, to City ofTemecula
Re: Comments on PA06-0369IPA06-0370
Page 2
formally requests to meet with the City concerning these issues prior to these Projects receiving any .
approvals.
The Pechanga Tribe is not opposed to this development project. The Pechanga Tribe's
primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native American cultural resources. The
i Pechanga Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources,
i such as Luiseflo village sites and archaeological items which may be displaced by ground-disturbing
I. work on the project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American
! human remains and sacred items that may be discovered in the course of the work.
!
I The Pechanga Tribe has a legal and cultural interest in the proper protection of sacred places
1 and all Luiseno cultural resources that are located on these Project properties. Given that Luiseflo
i cultural resources may be affected by the Project, the Pechanga Tribe is formally requesting to be
I involved and participate with the Lead Agency. and the Project Applicant in developing all
I monitoring and. mitigation plans for the duration of the Project. Further, given the potential for
! archaeological resources within the Project area; it is the position of the Pechanga Tribe that .
Pechanga tribal monitors should be required to be present during all ground-distlirbing activities if
such activities are conducted in native soils that have previously not been subject to mass grading,
including any archeological testing perfonned. It is further the position of the Pechanga Tribe that an
Agreement regarding appropriate treatment of cultural resources be drafted and entered into by and
between the Project Applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will also address inadvertent
discoveries and the issues with regard to the existing resources on the Project property. The
Pechanga Tribe also requeSts that all existing sacred sites on the Project property be preserved.
I
I
,
. ,
.1
I
i
i
I
1
I
i
I
,
i
i
!
i
i
i The Pechanga Tribe looks forWard to working together with the City of Temecula Planning
i Department and other interested agencies in protecting the invaluable Luiseiio cultural resources
~ . .
I
!.
i
,
, .
.1
.,
!
The Pechanga Tribe believes that if human remains are discovered, State law would apply
and the mitigation measures for the pennit must account for this. . According to the California Public
Resources Code, ~S097.98, if Native American huinan remains are discovered, the Native American
Heritage commission must name a "Dios! likely descendant," who shall be consulted as to the
. appropriate. disposition of the remains. Given the. Project's location in Pechanga territory, the
Pechanga Tribe intends to assert its right pursuant to California law with regard to any remains or
items discovered in the course of this project. The Agreement mentioned above would also address
Native American human remains as well. .
Lastly, in the ease of discovery of new or additional sites or resources, thcPeehangaTribe .
requests that all new sacred sites be preserved; and that the Lead Agency commit to re-evaluatirig the
Project impacts to cultural resources and adopting appropriate mitigation measureS to address suCh
,inadvertent discoveries. ThePeChanga Tribe intends to assert. its legal rights with respect to
additional finds of. significant sites or cultural . resources which are. of sacred and ceremonial
significance to the Pechanga Tribe.
Pechanga Cui/ural Resources' Temecula Balld o[Luisefio Missiolllndialls .
Pas/Office Box 2183. Temecula. CA92592
Sacred Is The Duty T rusted Unto Ow' Care And Wi/" Honor We Rise To The Need
pechanga Letter daied 1212212006, to City ofTemecula
Re: Comments on PA06"o369/PA06-0370
Page 3
found in the Project area. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951)
I 308,9295.
-t-
I
I
Please contact me as soon as possible to set up a meeting time coneerning the Tribe's issues.
Thank YOIl for the opPortuitity to submit these comments.
Sincerely,
~ ~8~r
[)ale Foster
Cultural Analyst
Co: Debbie UbnosI<-b.GltY~ingDiteCtOr
DaVid Hqgan; Cityl'lanilingDepartti:ulnt
P(!challga Legal ~eJit
I
Pech4nga Cultural ReSoUlCeS . Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indimrs
. Post Olfu:e Box Zl83 . Temecula. CA 92591 .
Sacred Is The Duty TrUsted Unto Our Can! And With Honor We Rise To The Need
ATTACHMENT NO.7
INITIAL STUDY
G:IPlannlng\2006IPA~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlannlngIPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
19
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration
PROJECT:
A Development Agreement (PA07-0220), General Plan Amendment (PA07-
0048), Tentative Tract Map No. 35181 (PA06-0370), and Development Plan
(PA06-0369) with a Minor Exception (PA07-0090)
APPLICANT:
Temecula Properties, LLC
LOCATION:
Located at the northwest corner of Dendy Parkway and Winchester Road
DESCRIPTION:
. A Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map,
and Development Plan with a Minor Exception for a 608,934 square foot
industrial building on 32 acres, and for the future development of the remaining
52 acres to include industrial,commercial, retail, high-density residential, and/or
public institutional facility land uses .
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based
upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this
project as. proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As
a result, the Director of Planning intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project.
The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment
are included in the project design and/or the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this
Notice and will be included as part of the Negative Declaration for this project.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is August 4, 2007 to September 3, 2007.
Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed
below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City
Hall is located at 43200 Business Park Drive. .
. .
. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through:
The Local Newspaper. "
Posting the Site . "
Notice to Adjacent Property Owners '
,c;emingthis project, please contact Dana Schum a at (951) 6~00.
Co . -. . . . Dana Schuma. Associate Planner
(Signature) . (Title)
. . Prepared by:
. .;
G:IPIanning\2OO6\A06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (ITM3S181)lPIanninglCEQAIN01.dot
. 1
ofU_~
~~~
"~=:/
City of Temecula
I P A06-03 70 I
'----'-____._ji:
__..-I'----._jf/.-~:__
/
L___-i, ,/ il...'\ \/
i/-_...... r " ,/ - \ \
-' '-- "'".\ L//\" /""---~\ \
"---., .----/1----.. /' \-/ /~.~.
/"\ . \y\ ~"
':~~~-\"/-~~~~j
1/' ,
i
'~':\l
A~//----
\\
,\
/
, '
-" /
<
,
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
/
//.---
~-,/
Legend
N
o
.
600. 1,200
2.400
3,600
'Feet
This map was made by !he City of T emea.da Geograptic Inmnnatiori System.
The map isd(!riYed tom base data pmduced by the RivetsicIe County Asaesso(s
Department and the Transportation and Land ManagementAgency of Riverside
County. The City of Temecula assumes no wananty or legal le$o<<1sib1NIy tor !he
Information a:mtUtecl on this maP. Data and information representeJ onlhls map
... subject to update and mocllication. The Geographic Information System and
other Sotl"C8S shoulcl be quarled-for the most current infOrmation.
This map Is not rot reprint or resale.
R:\G1S\AaronM\SM:S TemplatesW:ns_tefnPlate.lTlXl:f
,,~
.4"~
~. .
.'<:.,
./ ~~
.~
\~
'l\,..
Q"
q,.~
~~
/<-~:~."
/><
'...:fjjA~<<\6~.~\):(~1.'-:''S'\'' ,~~,\.' X" >.,/ /".\
. q,-4. '_' #, <:_ ,( \-~/)' r< X" ".~/~ ,./ I!\
,/1 '"'~ "'/<>/'Y~<..~$\(~Q~.CS:\~.\<\~?:~;~~;\~),(
~ " ./. /"( ^' /', ,o',,', ~ \. '" / /" C'i ~
\ ''';A';'' >,<", ___v:.v(~,-/' \"" , //:l?V \.,
'- \ ,/ ~.:, . . , / ,,:..( ~.o:- /\ >- ':t\
\ " ,/ """f.;-';/ V/ '" ,/ I ',\/? ,~/' ,,/ 'yY., \
, .. ~ .,. .. / I' ~''''_ /i"
\ /" 't; / '- \. / " ^'~h. ~'\ /.~ 'y
"f /' >--....< Y'-.>v<~/' ~-f. )<~
\ \ "y/ ,/ '\ --: ~~ //""'~ "~::--' /-\
'\ /' S, c:;'<>Y rJt, \ $>"~' /'
, ',/ /.t/~~!\.r~YJ~~~ '\.~\
\ \. ,.W A ~x/'0 A' '-
\", ,.f:Y"'" / ,\,<:, /.. "iiJ' ' \
~ \4(Jr"/ / "'\: )j.$i
\1;" .~i:P~- /' 'J-7."
''\./",,'' //
';><;/ 'y/ /;/
. h ~> "'-... /://
, y'.-......
-------?~ ~-
.,'.,<: .
//. /"'~'
'/)' ~
~~ (el
0-;(< //:: )"~"?A~" G Vjk
0-/ \ ~ ):Xv:<<-~"~ '<:)
\, ' ~
I ~ ..
~,
<<,f::J
// \':'-
,-'/
/ '
//
.,/""'j'
-' <.c.:<:/'.'"
:.-<<""~
\'.
/;-.,
1
~.
-ftc,
/
,,:.-../.\
.. \
\
/,/
//'\\
/'. \
,/ \,\
':\
.',- /
,v
_/\~'\
/
/
/
J
<
\
'\
'"
',<
"
///
/
/
'\
,~
.-'
((:c'\CrG'E"~/.,//\
\"
--~\.- J(------- --- \
.-. \ \1 / -. -.J,\ __~\
//-)___~~>-<.- ;i' "-,~ ~.:;~~.-.--
~ I '\'" --- /,"' .\;--
/ ,il~-'~-~://--;:"/' "'\. \\ ------.---------
,/ \'\. / '-"". ~\, \
, ,/"~-._'
/~_.____j I ~cP\. \
( ""---'-,\,/. ''#, "
./ "--'- ....' .
",c;r;
" , ~
.
-.-",.---'
'v'/'
...-'"'-
I,) --~
)
\
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589.9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title Development Agreement between Professional Hospital Supply
(PHS), the Garrett Group, and the City of Temecula, a General Plan
Amendment, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Plan
Lead Agency Name and Address City of T emecula
. P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number Dana Schuma, Associate Planner .
(951) 694-6400
Project Location Generally located at the northwest comer of Winchester Road and
Dendy Parkway in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California
Project Sponsor's Name and Address The Garrett Group
One BetterWorld Circle
Temecula, CA. 92590
General Plan Designation Industrial Park (IP)
. Zoning Light Industrial Ill)
Description of Project Temecula Properties LLC is applying to the City of Temecula for a
Development Agreement (PA07-0220) and General Plan Amendment
(PA07-0048), which will authorize the development . of an
approximate 84 acre property generally located at the northwest
comer of Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway in the City of
Temecula. . A Tentative Tract Map (TIM 35181, PA06-0370) will
subdivide the approximate 84 acre site into four developable parcels
and one 16-acre easement parcel for slope and drainage purposes:
A future Specific Plan will define the anticipated land uses and
development standards for three of the four developable parcels.
The Specific Plan will accommodate for future industrial, commercial,
. retail, high-density residential, and/or public institutional facility land
uses on the three parcels totaling approximately 45 acres. A
Development Plan (PA06-0369) for Parcel 4 proposes a new
industrial medical distribution facility for Professional Hospital Supply
(PHS) Corporation on approximately 30 acres. The entire project site
is located in an urbanized area surrounded by industrial and
commercial land uses.
The Development Plan for Parcel 4 will allow PHS to expand their
operations onto this site from another location in the City.. . The
proposed plan provides for a development of up to 608,934 square
feet of building area. . The project will consist of. a three-story'
industrial building for office and warehouse/distribution use, and a
400 square foot pump house. Primary access to. the 'proposed
. development will be provided via an entrance off of Dendy Parkway,
with secondary access provided via an entrance. off of a proposed
extension of Remington Avenue. Parking to accommodate the.
proposed development will be accomplished by 399 surface parking
spaces.
The precise site layout, including the appearance of the buildings and
facilities for Parcels 1, 2,anCt 3 created by TIM 35181 will be
determined at a later date with subseouEmt entitlement applications.
. G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (tTM35181 )IPlanninglCEOAllnltial Study - PHS.doc
1
The Development Agreement and General Plan Amendment only
authorize the overall development of these parcels. The future
Specific Plan will specify the exact land uses for each of the parcels.
Development plans for the individual parcels will be subject to a City
develooment review orocess.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is surrounded by undeveloped property to the north,
east, and west, and industrial development to the south. The
property located directly to the east is the Temecula Redevelopment
Agency's property.
See Attachment B
Other public agencies whose approval None
is required .
. .
G:\Planning\2006\PA06'0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanningICEOAUnitial Study - PHS.doc
2
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages,
./ Aesthetics
A riculture Resources
./ Air Quali
./ Biolo ical Resources
./ Cultural Resources
./ Geolo and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
H drolo and Water Quali
land Use and Planniil
Mineral Resources
./ Noise
Po ulation and Housin
Public Services
Recreation
Trans ortation/Traffic
Utilities and Service S stems
Mandato Findin s of Si nificance
None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
./
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared,
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 becaiJse revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
ro'ect ro onent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared, .
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an .earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, .and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measiJres based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal e onl the effects that remain to be. addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are.
. im osed u on the ro. osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired..
I
)~ fl//r;-
Date,
.U~~ /. flbm~.
Printed Name
City ofT emecula
For. .
. G:lPlanning\200SIPAOS-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )lPlanninglCEaAllnltial Study - PHS.doc
. 3
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Sunnnrtina Information Sources Imeacl IncorOOrated Imeacl Imeacl
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ./
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 0/
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hiahwav?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or . ./
aualitv of the site and its surroundinos?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ./
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
1.a. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The project could potentially affect a
scenic vista. The project site is located within an urbanized area directly adjacent to an open space
hillside. The entire 84 acres is currently undeveloped land. Implementation of the proposed project
would convert a vacant hillside into a mix of development with supporting parking facilities and
landscaping. The location and elevation of the developable parcels as well as the proposed 608,934
square foot building for PHS could potentially block visibility to portions of the hillside; therefore,
impacting public views of the hillside and the open space area.
To address this concern, Section 17.08.070 of the City Development Code provides performance
. standards and criteria for the design of commercial/officelindustrial buildings within the City, recognizing
that the quality and compatibility of building design directly impacts the health, safety and welfare of the
residents of the community. These performance standards include strategies for minimizing visual
impacts of commercial/officelindustrial development through a variety of building design elements. The
project will also be required to comply with the height and landscape standards in the Development.
Code. The maximum building height for the LI zone is 50 feet and a minimum 20 percent of the site
shall be landscaped. . Quality landscaping has the potential to significantly reduce potential visual
impacts from development. In addition, the General Plan Community Design Element implements
hillside grading and site design requirements that help to preserve the integrity of natural slopes. The
. following supplemental measure will be implemented as part of the mitigation monitoring program to
minimize the visual and aesthetic impacts from this project toa less than significant level.
Mitiaation
1. To ensure that the seale and character of proposed development along the hillside does not
detract from the natural views, all structures associated with the development shall be designed
in conformance with the General. Plan requirements and Development Code standards:
Specifically, the visual mass of the buildings along the hillside shall be reduced through breaks
in the structure, tree plantings, articulation of the fa,.ade, and other architectural devices.'
1.b. No Impact The project site has no major scenic resources including trees, rock outcroppings. or .
historic buildings which exist on the project site. The proposed project isnol'located on. or near a
scenic highway. There will be no impact to any scenic resources from the proposed facility.
. .
. .
1.c. Potentially Significimt Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated: Approximately 54 acres of the.
project site have been previously graded. The remaining 32 acres of the project site consist of
undeveloped land.. In its current undeveloped and unimproved state, the site has low visual quality.
Implementation of the proposed project will alter the visual character of the site through a mix of
G:\PIanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\planningICEOAUnitial Study - PHS.doc
4
development with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. If not well designed, the development
could significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
Potential degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings can be
mitigated to a less than significant level through design measures~ Both the mitigation listed under Item
1.a above and the mitigation listed below will reduce future visual impacts.
Mitiaation
2. The development shall be designed to minimize detrimental impacts on surrounding properties,
including, but not limited to, visual, noise, air quality and other environmental impacts.
Strategies for minimizing the impacts include protecting any future residential areas adjacimt to
. industrial and commercial development through screening of circulation areas, loading areas
and trash collection points or other areas that could potentially be disruptive to the character of
the adjacent areas.
1.d. Less than Significant Impact: The business park lighting, and parking lot and street lighting would be
typical of other development in the surrounding area and would not create unusual levels of light and
glare. The proposed project will be developed consistent with the standards established in the City's
Development Code, Section 17.24.050.F which states that, "lighting of outdoor parking areas shall be
designed and maintained in a manner to prevent glare or direct illumination from intruding into...
[adjacent properties]." The proposed project lighting design and landscaping will assist in minimizing
the effects of increased light and glare in that the lighting on the site will be shielded and directed
downward, and landscaping will help to screen exterior building light. Development associated with the
proposed project will also be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating light Pollution),
which includeslig.hting standards to avoid negative impacts on astronomical research at Mount
. Palomar Observatory. The lighting standards of OrdinariceNo. 655 include provisions for restricting
the light source, light projection, hours of light operation and outdoor displays areas for. all projects
within a 45 mile radius of Mount Palomar Observatory. Project consistency with City Ordinance No.
655 will reduce the potential for significant impacts on the Observatory to a less than significant level.
J
. .' .
G:IPlanning\2006ll>A~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM3S181 )\PlannlnglCEQAllnltial Study - PHS.doc
.S
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Suooortina Infannation Sources Imnact lncorrv.,.".ted Imnact Im";'ct
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland .{
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-aQricultural use? .
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a . .{
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, .{
due to their location .or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-aQricultural use?
Comments:
2.a-c. No Impact: This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance
as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temeclila General Plan. The site
is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. In addition, the project will
not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. .
G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlanninglCEOAllnitial Study. PHS.doc
. 6
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation SignifICant No
Issues and Suooortina Information Sources Imoad I Imoact Imoact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ./
air aualitv olan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ./
to an existing or projected air Qualitv violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ./
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed Quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ./
concentrations? .
e. Create objectionable od.ors affecting a substantial number ./
of people? .
Comments:
3.a. Less than Significant Impact: The project proposes a 608,934 square foot industrial medical supply
warehouse (including 82,476 square feet of office use), and approximately 178,000 square feet of
future commercial retail uses, 31,200 square feet of future office uses, a small percentage of high
. density residential, and/or public institutional facilities to be defined and further analyzed in a future
Specific Plan. An Air Quality Impact Analysis Report prepared dated October 20, 2006 was prepared
for the project by Urban Crossroads. The analysis report evaluated the air quality impacts associated
with the proposed 84 acre development. .
The project is located in the South Coast Air Basin within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). The project is therefore subject to the SCAQMD's Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP establishes thresholds toassist lead agencies in determining
whether construction andlor operation of a project will have significant air quality impacts. The AQMP
contains a Comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and
achieving ambient air. quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based. on regional
population, housing, and. employment projections in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) prepared
. by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)..
With regard to air quality planning, the RCP projections form the basis for the land use and
. transportation control portions of the AQMP, and are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts
and consistency analysis i11cluded in the AQMP. Since the RCP and AQMP strategy is based. on
projections from local General Plans, projects proposing a General Plan Amendment (GPA) require a
consistency review with the AQMP. .. .
. .
The City of Temecula General Plan EIR assumed that development would occur on the subject site
consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Industrial Park (IP). . The General Plan
designation is implemented through the City's LI (Light Industrial) zoning designation. The General
Plan EIR analyzed the impacts from potential uses in the LI zone. The projeCt proposes a General Plan
Amendment to designate the site as a future Specific Plan Area. The future Specific Plan Areawill
accommodate uses anticipated for Parcels 1 through 3, and impllcts anticipated from future uses will be
analyzed under the future Specific Plan.. The development of Parcel 4 will be. consistent with the
. .
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\Planning\CEQA~nilial Study - PHS:doc
7
underlying industrial land use designation used to forecast air quality impacts for the davelopment.
Additionally, the General Plan Air Quality Element encourages mixed-use projects, and development
and expansion of businesses while also promoting development of housing affordable to all segments
of the community near job opportunity sites and within mixed use areas to ensure that future land use
pattems and traffic increases are accompanied by measures to improve air quality.
According to the Air Quality Analysis Report, the project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) when all available emission reduction
strategies are implemented as effectively as possible. Furthermore, the project will comply with the
provisions of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the City's General Plan Air Quality Element
policies and goals. As a result, no adverse impacts are forecast and no mitigation is required.
3.b-c. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated: For project related emissions, the
URBEMIS model was used to forecast emission levels for both short term construction activities and
long term operational activities (Air Quality Impact Analysis Report prepared by Urban Crossroads,
October 20, 2006). The proposed project will result in short-term dust and exhaust emissions during
the project construction phases. Construction related emissions are expected from rough grading,
underground utility construction, paving, building construction, architectural coatings, and construction
. workers commuting. Under the assumed worse case construction conditions, in which equipment was
operated on average for eight hours per day, the project will result in emissions that would exceed
regional criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC), Nitrogen Oxides (NO.), and Fine Particulate Matter (PMlO). After the
recommended emissions reduction measures are implemented, the short term construction impacts will
not have a significant effect and are therefore not expected to result in a cumulatively significant impact
during short term construction activity.
For long-term operational activity the project will not have a significant air quality impact as defined by
either Localized Significant Threshold or regional daily emission thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD.
Operational related emissions would be expected from vehicle emissions, fugitive dust related to
vehicle travel, combustion emissions associated with natural gas use, landscape maintenance
equipment emissions, and architectural coatings. Since the project is not expected to exceed the
emissions thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD it is assumed that the project and other cumulative
developments will not result in cumulatively significant impact during operational activity.
Local area Carbon Monoxide (CO) conCentrations were projected using the CALINE-4 air quality
model. Ambient CO concentrations were combined with CO concentrations generated by vehicle traffic
at individual intersections to determine total intersection CO contributions from the proposed project.
The intersections with the highest potential for CO hotspot formation were selected for analysis based
on Level of Service (LOS), high project-related traffic volumes (available from the Traffic Impact
Analysis Report prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 20, 2006), and the proximity of this trafflc to
.. sensitive receptors. "The intersections analyzed for CO concentration at project buildout were .Diaz
. Road. (NSf at Winchester Road (EW), Enterprise Circle (NS) at Winchester Road (EW), and J~fferson
. Avenue (NS) at Winchester (EW). Based on the impact analysis, none of these locations are projected
to experience CO levels in excess of the allowable concentration of 20.0ppm. Since.significant
impacts. would. not occur at intersections wit,h the. highest potential forGO hotspot formation, no
significant impacts are anticipated to occur at any other locations in the project vicinity as a result of f!1e
proposed project (Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, 2006, page 4-19). .
. . .
. .
Based on the analysis, the proposed project may potentially violate an air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and result in.a cumulatively considerable net.
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project. region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard from project related construction activities. Emissions
reduction measures, including dust control and equipment condition, will be implemented as part of the
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )lP1anning\CEQA~nitial Study - PHS,doc
. 8
mitigation monitoring program to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (Air Quality Impact
Analysis Report, 2006, page 5-1).
The impacts to air quality standards will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation,
monitoring, and enforcement of the following mitigation measures. .
Mitiaation
3. Adhere to best management practices which include the application of water on disturbed soils
twice daily, covering haul vehicles, replanting disturbed areas as soon as pra;;tical and
restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph to control fugitive dust.
4. Trucks hauling dust, sand, gravel, or soil are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet
of freeboard in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code.
5. During site grading, underground, and building activity construction, the contractor shall adhere
to SCAQMD Rule 431.2 (diesel fuel with sulfur content of 15 ppm by weight or less).
6. During construction, oft-road construction equipment shall be maintained in good condition and
in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications and restrict diesel equipment idling to no
more than five minutes. .
7. Limit application of paint to 50 gallons per day and use of Zero-VaC paints. (assumes no more
than 150 gram/liter of vac). .
3.d. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project uses do not contain any AQMD permitted
stationary emissions sources. There are currently no existing or proposed sensitive receptors in close
proximity to the proposed project. Future uses however do indicate the potential for sensitive land uses,
such as residences, schools, or athletic facilities; to be located adjacent to the project site; however,
impacts anticipated from future uses will be analyzed under the future Specific Plan. In general, the
primary pollutant of concern with regard to harmful pollutant concentrations resulting from development
projects is CO. As described above, construction and operation of the proposed uses would not result
in any substantial local or regional air pollution impacts and, therefore, would not expose any nearby
sensitive receptors to severe air pollution conditions. Impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
3.e. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed uses for the site are not considered lailduses that
would generate significant odor impacts. No construction activities, materials, or daily activities are
proposed which would create objectionable odors. Certain amounts of odors will be generated from
vehicles tailpipe exhaust emissions during construction and operation. . These odors would be
attributable to emissions from unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes which. are typically very small. .
Lastly, any odor impact generated during construction activities would be short term in nature and
cease uponcompletiQn oftherespective phase of the project. As a result, odorimpacts associated with
.' the proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant.
. . .
G:lPlannlng\2OO6\PAlJ6.0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )lPlannlnglCEQAUnitial Study - PHS.dOc .
. 9
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Sunnnrtinn Information Sources . Imoact InoorOOrated Imooel Imooel
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or v-
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat v-
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or uS Fish and Wildlife
Service? .
c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected v-
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruotion, or other means?
d. .Interfere substantially with the movement of any native v-
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
. or imoede the use of native wildlife nUrserv sites? .
e. Conflict with any local policies orordinances protecting v-
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat v-
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation alan?
Comments:
4.a-b. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated:. The applicant submitted a complete
Biological Technical Report for the proposed project detailing the biological resources present on the 84
acre site (Biological Technical Report for Temecula 84 Project by Helix Environmental dated March23,
2007). The 52-acre portion Of the project site has already been graded and contains no biological
resources or any habitat suitable to support C<lndidate, sensitive, or special status species. However,
the 32-acre portion of the project site is relatively undisturbed and biological resources are present.
The proposed project would result in impacts to approximately 16.65 acres of sensitive vegetation,
including 2.98 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.37 acre of southern mixed chaparral, 0.92 acre of
scrub oak chaparral, 0.17. acre of native grassland, and 12.21 acres of non-native grassland (Figure 7;
Table 8 of the Biological Technical Report). The proposed project would also result in off-site impacts
to 0.02 acre of disturbed wetland, 0.15 acre of non-native grassland, and 0.06 acre of disturbed habitat
(Figure 7; Table 8 of the Biological Technical Report). These impacts are considered significant. The
project proposes to preserve a total of 17.82 acres comprised of 1.18 acre of Diegan coastal sage
scrub, 9.92 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 5.25 acres of scrub oak chaparral, 0.04 acre of native
grassland, 0.97 acre of non-native grassland and 0.46 acres of disturbed habitat.
. G:lPlanning\2006IPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)lPlanningICEQAllnltlaIStudy - PHS.doc
. 10 .
--. " ... ~.
The project is within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP) Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia) Survey Area. Burrowing owl surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2007 in
accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan Area (Updated Burrowing Owl Survey Results for the Temecula 84 (formerly
known as Temecula 32) Property by Helix Environmental dated March 23, 2007). No burrowing owl or
sign of burrowing owl was observed on site or within 500 feet of the site. The site is not occupied by
burrowing owl. No burrowing owl was observed during the focused surveys of the site. However, the
property contains suitable habitat and therefore potential for affecting burrowing owls indirectly. A pre-
construction burrowing survey is required within 30 days prior to ground disturbance by the project.
The project will impact 0.02 acre of Corps jurisdictional habitat (ephemeral drainage, non-wetland
waters of the U.S.) and 0.06 acre of California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) jurisdictional
habitat and permits will. be required. However, those jurisdictional areas do not meet the MSHCP
definition of Riparian/Riverine habitat and a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior
Preservation (DBESP) analysis was not required.
No threatened or endangered plant species were observed on site. The project is not within the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Narrow Endemic
Plant Species Survey Area or Criteria Area Species Survey Area; therefore, focused plant surveys are
not required.
The federally listed endangered least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellli pusillus) was .observed foraging within
the southern mixed chaparral in the northwest comer of the site for approximately one minute. Those
two birds were subsequenUy observed flying off site to the north. No suitable nesting habitat for the
vireo is present on or adjacent to the site. Based on their vocalizations and behavior, and the time of
year observed, the two individuals were determined to be first-year birds that were dispersing through
the area and not resident on the site. Suitable nesting habitat is present approximately 0.5 :nile north.of
the project site within Murrieta Creek. The proposed project is not expected to have any impact on
least Bell's Vireo. .
Implementation of the project would therefore have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on several species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or of special
status. Riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish afld Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service
. will also be impacted. Mitigation is recommended for these potential impacts.
The indirect biological Impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation,
monitoring, and enforcement of the following mitigation measures. . .
. Mitiaation
8.
A . pre-construction burrowing owl. survey is required 30 days prior to commencement of
construction. If any burrowing owl. is found on site, the CDFG shall be consulted, and a passive
relocation effort shall. be undertaken outside of the nesting season. No disturbance of active
nests will ocCur.. . .
9.
. .
A qualified biologist shall determine if any activeraptor nests occur within the limits of .
disturbance prior to commencement of grubbing, clearing, or grading activities.
10. ..
" ..'
No brushing, clearing, or grading shall occur within 500 feet of occupied tree-nesting raptor
habitat during the raptorbreeding sea~on (typically December to July). .
.In order to ensure Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) compliance, clearing of native vegetation
shall occur outside. the breeding season of most avian species (February 1 through September
11.
G:\Planning\2006lPA~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlannlnglCEOAllnitial Study - PHS.doc
.1.1
15) unless a pre-construction nesting bird survey determines that no nesting birds are present.
The City of Temecula would need to approve activities after concurrence is received from the
wildlife agencies.
12. Lighting within the proposed project adjacent to preserved habitat shall be of the lowest
illumination allowed for human safety and selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from
preserved habitat.
13. Impacts to upland habitats and associated species will be addressed through participation in the
MSHCP and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees. The project is located
within the Riverside County Stephens' kangaroo rat Habitat ConserVation Plan (HCP) Fee
Assessment Area.
4.c. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The applicant submitted a complete
Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the proposed project site (Jurisdictional Delineation for Temecula
84 Project dated June 26, 2006 by Helix Environmental). There are jurisdictional waters of the state
and U.S. on the project site. The report mapped existing areas under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and wetland and
streambed habitats under California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction pursuant to
Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. This information was necessary to ,evaluate jurisdictional
impacts and permit requirements associated with proposed construction on the subject property.
The proposed project will not affect any wetlands on site and vernal pools are not present on site.
However, the project will impact 0.02 acre of Corps jurisdictional habitat (ephemeral drainage, non-
wetland waters of the U.S.) and 0.06 acre of CDFG jurisdictional streambed habitat. Therefore,
implementation of the project will result in, a substantial adverse effect of federally protected waters as
, 'defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act and the following mitigation is recommended. '
The impacts to federally protected wasters will be reduced to a less than significant level with
implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of the.following mitigation measures.
Mitiaation
14. Both Federal Clean Water Sections 404 and 401 permits and a 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement are required. Copies of all required permits shall be provided to the City prior to the
start of construction and full compliance with, all ofthe terms and conditions of those permits ,and
agreement is required.
15. Impacts to jurisdictional areas will be mitigated through a 1:1 ratio through off-site creation or
purchase of wetland credits within an approved wetiand mitigation bank. ' '
4.d, Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project site lies within MSHCP Proposed Linkage 10
and ;is therefore identified foreonservation. The adjoining 52-acre parcel to the northwest (APN 909-.
370.018) was also identified for conservation as part of Proposed Linkage 10. However, that parcel
has already been graded and eontainsnobiological resources or any habitat suitable to support any
MSHCP-covered species. Consequently, the subject parcel is currently bordered by developed
property to the north, south and east and wOl,lld not function as a wildlife corridor. In addition the .
alignment of the Westem B'ypass, an' approved Circulation Elernent'roadway, extends,' along, the
eastem portion of northern border of the adjacent 52~cre parcel and tumssoutheast and extends
throl,lgh the subject pa~l. The Western Bypass would also preclude the assembly of Proposed
, , Linkage 10 on the southerly portion of the property. '
The City informed the County of Riverside of the approved Western Bypass during MSHCP preparation
and has planned for this type of industrial/commerciall,lse of the subject property as part of the General
Plan. The Western Bypass is an approved Circulation Element roadway that is a covered project
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\Planning\CEOA\lnitial Study - PHS.doc
, , 12
generally described in MSHCP Section 7.3.5 (Planned Road within the Criteria Area) and specifically
shown on Figure 7.1 (General Plan Circulation Element with Criteria Area). The Regional Conservation
Authority (RCA) has informed the City that it considers all of the project site area east of the Western
Bypass to be part of the covered project and consequently the entire Professional Hospital Supply site
is covered under the MSHCP and no conservation is required. However, the project is subject to the
MSHCP Local Developrnent Mitigation Fee.
The proposed project will not therefore interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and no impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.
4.e.. No Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact is anticipated as a
result of the proposed project.
4.f.
j
Less than Significant Impact: On September22, 2006, the applicant submitted a complete Habitat
Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) Application and Analysis for the proposed project site.
The property is located within Independent Criteria Cells 6781 and 6888 of Subunit 6 (Santa Rosa
Plateau) of the Southwest Area Plan. The project site falls within Proposed Linkage 10 and is therefore
identified for conservation. According to the MSHCP, conservation within Cell 6781 will range from 35
to 45 percent, focusing in the Cell's southwestem portion. Conservation within Cell 6888 will range from
55 to 65 percent, focusing in the Cell's southwestern portion. The proposed project site lies within the
southern half of Cell 6781 and the northern half of Cell 6888. Based on the following list, t:,e project is
. consistent with the MSHCP and therefore impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result
of the project.
. Seven MSHCP-covered species (coastal western whiptail, least Bell's vireo, Cooper's hawk,
coyote, bobcat, rufous-crowned sparrow, and San. Diego black-tailed jackrabbit) were
observed/detected on site. Habitats of six of the seven sensitive animal species would be
adversely affected by the proposed project. Those impacts are adequately mitigated under the
cOverage of the MSHCP.. No suitable habitat for vireo occurs on site, even though the species
was briefly observed foraging on site during one site visit; .
. The project will implement the identified avoidance and conservation measures in accordance
with Section 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildlands Interface); .
· The proposed project will be in full confomlance with Section 6.1.2 (Riparian/Riverine Areas and
Vernal Pools) because none are present on site;
. .
· The proposed project will be in full confomlance with Section 6.1.3 (Narrow En.demic Plant
Species) because the site is not within the MSHCP NEPSSA and none were observed during
the biologicatsurvey; . ..
· The. proposed project will be in. full confomlance with. Section 6.3.2 (Database'
. . Updates/Additional Survey Requirements). The site is not within the MSHCP's Critical Area.
Species S.urvey Area (CASSA) for plant species and none were observed on . site. The only. .
focused animal survey required on the site for sensitive animal species is for the burrowing owl.
. Focused burrowing owl surveysw'ere conducted in 2006 by HELIX with negatiyeresults. A pre-
construction burrowing owl survey is required 30 days prior to commencement of construction.
If any burrowing owl is found on site,. the CDFGshall be. cOnsulted, and a . passive relocation
effort shall be undertaken outside of the nesting season. No disturbance of active nests will
occur.
. G:lPlanningl2OO6lPA0&0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )lPlanninglCEQAUnitial Snidy - PHS.doc .
. 13 .
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Potentially
PotentiaDy Significant Unl8S$ less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Sunnnrtinn Information Sources Imooel IncorOOrated Imoact . Imooel
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of '"
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of '"
an archaeolooical resource oursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological .,/
resource or site or unioue oeolooic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred .,/
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
5.a-b,d.Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The City of Temecula General Plan (April
12,2005) does not identify the project site as a sensitive archaeological resource area. However, the
University of Califomia, Riverside Eastem Information Center (EIC) has record of the project area being
previously examined in the course of several previous studies. The previous studies resulted in the
recordation of three archaeological sites and identification of possibly a fourth cultural resources
property not formally recorded.
The 52-acre portion of the proposed project site was the subject of intensive archaeological testing and
monitoring in 2005 as it overlies a known and mostly destroyed prehistoric archeological site, CA-RIV-
237 (Final Report on Prehistoric Site Boundary Testing and Survey of a Historic Homestead at CA-RIV-
237/H, Cogstone Resource Management Inc., October 2005). The site has been extensively damaged
over the years and no longer retains integrity under CEOA. However, resources are located. in the
northeastem portion of the site which are not to be disturbed in the future. The remainder of the site
may be. graded provided it is monitored by a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor
pursuant to the Cogstone2005 Study.
A Phase I archaeological and paleontological resources report was conducted for the 32 acre portion of
the project site in August 2006 and revised in February 2007 (Archaeological and Paleontological
Assessment Report, Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., August 2006; revised February 2007). No
archaeological sites have been previously recorded within boundaries of the 32 acre parcel. However,
. based on research in the T emecula Valley and the proximity of the site to reliable water, ecozones, and
a wide viewshed, the project area would appellr to be a favorable settlement area and likely location. for
prehistoric occupation. During the survey a lithic scatter was observed on a level portion of the grassy
terrace. in the eastem part of the project area. Three quartzite flake artifacts associated with the
manufacture of prehistoric chipped stone tools were recorded during the survey. . As a result of the
assessment findings, the proposed project could potentially impact cultural resources and a phase II
archaeological testing program was recommended. . .
. . .
. . .
The Phase II archaeological report (Archaeological Testing Program, LSA Associates, Inc., March
. .2007) was conducted to detect and evaluate any subsurface archaeological deposit. . To determine the
. presence. and significance of buried cultural. reSources, the program allowed for surface collection,
shovel test pit (STP) excavation, one-by-one meter test excavation, and laboratory analysis in and .
around the reported location of the lithic scatter. The assessment did not yield any artifacts during the
testing at the reported site; therefore, LSA recommended that .the site not be considered "a unique
archaeological resource" or "historical resource" under CEOA.
. .. G:\Planning\2006\PA06.03io PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanningICEOAUnitlal Study - PHS.dOc
14
The Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians ("Tribe") is concerned that other areas of the site require further
testing. The Tribe states that, according to Tribal knowledge, resources exist on other areas of the site
that were not tested and that the testing for subsurface resources (the lithic scatter) did not occur in the
correct location. Therefore, further testing prior to grading is required per mitigation measure !lo. 17
below.
Due to the fact that construction projects in the area have identified significant archaeological sites
during earthmoving activities and based on findings from the cultural assessments, the project has
potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archeological
resource as defined in Section 15064, and to disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries. The following mitigation shall be required as part of the mitigation
monitoring program to ensure proper treatment and disposition of any unknown cultural resources that
. may be inadvertently discovered during further excavation activities.
The impacts to cultural resources will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation,
monitoring, and enforcement of the following mitigation measures.
Mitiaation
16. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall prepare an assessment of
the archaeological and cultural resources on the 84 acre project site. The assessrrieilt shall be
performed by a qualified archaeologist in conjunction with the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio
Indians in order to determine whether there are cultural resources on the property and evaluate
the significance of any such resources. Any such testing shall involve the Pechanga Tribe, and
all tests to determine impacts should be completed prior to the issuance of grading permits.
. 17. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall conduct further cultural
resources testing on the site in the areas which have been designated by the Pechanga Tribe
as likely to contain cultural resources. Prior to the testing, the project proponent shall meet with
representatives of the Pechanga Tribe and the City to determine the specific additional areas
that shall be tested. Representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be present during the testing
and the project proponent shall meet and confer in good faith with such Tribal representatives
with respect to comments they may have on the testing. In the event additional mitigation
measures are necessary as a result of cultural resources discovered the testing, the Director of
Planning shall be authorized, following a Director's Hearing, to impose such new conditions or .
modify existing conditions as necessary to mitigate any additional cultural resources impacts
which may be identified. .
18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall enter into a Treatment
Agreement with the Pechanga Band of I,.uiseiio Indians. . This agreement will address the
treatment and disposition.of cultural resources and human remains that may be uncovered
during construction as well as provisions for tribal monitors. ..
l
. . . . .
. .. . . . . .
19. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be allowed to monitor all
grading,.excavation and ground-bre13king activities, . including . further surveys, . lobe
Compensated bylhe project proponent TtiePechanga Tribal monitorS shall have the authority
10 temporarily stop . and redirect grading. activities to evaluate the significance. of allY
archaeological.resources discovered on the property, in conjunction with the archeologist and
the Lead Agency. .
..
. .
. .
20. A qualified archaeologist monitor shall be present during all earthmoving activities. . The monitor
shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction work in the vicinity of the find
. until it can be evaluated by the project archaeologist in conjunction with the Pechanga Tribe; . In
the event of a new find, further testing, excavation, and/or reporting may be required.
.. .
. . .
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\Plannlng\CEQAllnltial Study - PHS.doc
15 ..
21. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all
work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the
Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make
recommendations as to treatment and mitigation.
22. If human remains are encountered, all activity shall cease and the County Coroner must be
notified immediately. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 state that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of thp. origin and
until treatment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 has been decided. The
Coroner shall determine if the .remains are prehistoric, and shall notify the State Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) if applicable. Further actions shall be determined by
the desires of the Most Likely Descendent (MlD).
23. The landowner shall agree to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including allluiseiio
sacred items, burial goods and all archeological artifacts that are found on the project site to the
Pechanga Band of luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and dispositiori.
24. All sacred sites within the project area are to be avoided and preserved.
25. . The o/.-acre of cultural site CA-RIV 237 located in the northeast comer of Planning Application
PA06-0370 shall be preserved in Open Space and recorded with the County Recorder of
Riverside County as a conservation easement for preservation purposed in perpetuity. The 0/.-
acre of CA-RIV 237 shall not be subject' to development, archeological testing or ground-
disturbing activities.
5.c. . Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The City of Temecula General Plan (April
12, 2005) identifies the site as a highly sensitive paleontological resource area. Results of the
Paleontological Assessment conducted on the 32 acre parcel (Archaeological and Paleontological
Assessment Report, Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., August 2006, revised February 2007)
reinforce the high potential for encountering significant, nonrenewable vertebrate fossils.' The report
identified the presence of Pauba Formation sediments suitable to contain paleontological resources on
site. The site is 95 percent within the fanglomerate member of the Pauba Formation which is of
unknown potential to contain significant fossil resources. No fossils were observed during the survey.
Based on the information p(ovided in the assessment, potential impacts to paleontological resources.
can be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of following mitigation.
The impacts to paleontolc;>gical resources will be reduced to a less than significant level with'
implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of the following mitigation measures.
Mitiaation
26. A qualified paleontological monitor shall provide cultural resources sensitivity training (a 15 min.'
presentation) for all project personnel.
27, All. impacts to the sandstone and fanglomerate members of the Pauba Formation shall be
monitored full time at the beginning of gradirig. A trained paleontological monitor shall, be
present during ground disturbing activities within the project area determined likely to contain
paleontological resources. Monitoring will be adjusted to spot checking if initial monitoring
shows negative results.
28. Upon encountering any significant fossils; salvage of all fossils in the area shall be conducted
with additional field staff and in accordance ~ith modem paleontological techniques.
29. Any significant fossils recovered shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification.
Excess sediment or matrix will be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of
G:\Planning\2006\PAOl}()370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\Planning\CEQA~nitial Study. PHS.doc
, 16
storage. Itemized catalogs of all material collected and identified shall be provided to the
museum repository along with the specimens.
30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a report documenting the results of the monitoring and
any salvage activities and the significance ofthe fossils shall be prepared.
31. Any significant fossils recovered, along with the itemized inventory of the specimens, shall be
deposited ina museum repository for permanent curation and storage.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOilS. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Untess Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
. Issues and SUN'V'Irtlnn lnfonnation Sources Im~el Inco~orated Imnacl Imoael
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involvina: .
i. The rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated ./
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
bilsed on other substantial evidence of a known fault? .
(Refer to Divis~~n of Mines and Geology Special
. Publication 42.
ii. Strono seismicaround shakino? ./
iii. Seismic-related'lround failure, includiriQjjOuefaction? ./
--,-- iv. landslides? ./
b. . Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of tODsoil? . ./
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ./
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
sareadina, subsidence, liauefaction or collaose? .
d. . Be located.on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ./
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or nrone,n;'? ... . .
e. . Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of . ./
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of . I
wastewater? . . ..
. Comments:
. 6caj-ii. PotentlallySignlf1cant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: According to the City of TemeculaGeneral
. Plan (April 12,2005) and the Riverside County Geologist, the project site is. located within two fault
zones: the eastern boundary of the project site is located within the Elsinore- Temecula Fault zone, and
the western boundary of theprojecl site is located within the Riverside County Fault zone. The Elsinore
fault has historically experienced earthquakes of moderate magnitude. A geotechnical investigation
(Preliminary Geotechnical ~valuation prepared by GeoTek, Inc. dated July 13, 2006) identifies the site
asa likely area to be damaged as the result of ground shaking generated by nearby earthquakes and .
: mitigation is required to reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death. The City of Temecula has adopted the
California Building Code to insure struCture integrity during seismic and other hazardous events, and to
prevent personal injury, loss of life, and. substantial property damage. Implementation of local building
Codes shall minimize the structural damage and risk associated with seismic events toa less than
significant level of impact.
. .
.G:\PlanningI2OO6lPA~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlanninglCEQAllnltial Study' PHS.doc
17
-- _.. ---,
Mitiaation
32. Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances shall be
followed during the design of all structures.
33. Subsequent geotechnical reviews shall be conducted prior to the development of Parcels 1, 2,
and 3 created by this project.
6.a.iii Less Than Significant Impact: As identified in the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not
located within a subsidence, liquefaction, expansive soil, or landslide hazard area. Section 5.5 on page
5 of the geotechnical investigation report (Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by GeoTek,
Inc. dated July 13, 2006) for the project site states that the secondary significant effects of seismic
activity, including liquefaction, landsliding, and ground subsidence are considered less than significant
at the site. The liquefaction potential on the site is considered to be low due to the relatively dense
nature of the underlying stream terrace deposits and the lack of shallow groundwater. Evidence of
ancient landslides or slope instabilities at the site was not observed during the geotechnical evaluation.
Dynamic settl,ement at the site does not appear to be a concem at this site due to the relatively dense
nature of the prevailing soil conditions. Tentative Map No. 35181 and the Development Plan have been
conditioned to address the potential risk associated with seismic activity. The project is required to
comply with all Conditions of Approval regarding geotechnical conditions for Tentative Map No. 35181
and the Development Plan for Parcel 4 (Condition of Approval Nos. 46 and 72, Prior to Grading Permit
Issuance). Less than significant impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, ground subsidence, or landslides are anticipated as a result of the project. '
6.b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: While the northeast portion of the project
site has been previously graded, the remainder of the project site is currently vacant and u~developed.
The proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of sOils due to construction activities.
Tentative Map No. 35181 and the Development Plan for Parcel 4 have been conditioned to address
erosion of soils during all grading activities. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions
of Approval regarding geotechnical conditions for Tentative Map No. 35181 and the Development Plan
for Parcel 4. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, impacts associated with
potential soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less thim significant.
Mitiaation
34. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Public Works
Department an erosion control plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of' the
Temecula Municipal Code, Section 18.15, Erosion and Sediment Control. '
, ,
, ,
35. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, landscape plans shall be prepared for all slopes
created by the grading and fill of these sites consistent with 'Slope Planting Guidelines. and the '
Development Code, and, shall provide erosion control on undeveloped portions of the site.
, "
, '
6c-d. potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: ACcording tothe Preliminary GeotechniCal
Evaluation prepared by GeoTek, Inc. dated July 13,2006, the site is mantled with a layer of
topsoillcolluviummaterials varying between 1.5 to 7.5 feet in thickness. These rnaterials are relatively ,
loose and considered potentially compressible. ,The Quatemary Pauba Formation compromises the
bedrock that underlies the site: The,Pauba Formationis generally densel;lnds~itable for structural
'support. Mesozoic-aged metasedimentary rock underlies, the, Pauba 'Formation' portions of the site.
These materials are considered rippable with properly equipped and well-operated heavy duty grading
equipment. The on-site soils.materialsare considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided that
they are free from vegetation, debris, rocks larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension,and other
deleterious material. Tentative Map No. 35181 and the Development Plan for Parcel 4 have ,been
conditioned to address soil conditions. The project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of
Approval regarding geotechnical conditions.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-{)370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlanningICEOAllnitial Study - PHS,doc
, , , '18
The Development Plan for Parcel 4 includes 1.5:1 cut slopes at the west side of project site. Based on
a Slope Stability Analysis prepared by GeoTek, Inc. dated March 21, 2007, the proposed 1.5:1 cut
slopes at the site are considered suitable from a geotechnical perspective. Based on the analysis, the
calculated factors for safety for the static condition, and for the seismic condition, exceed industry
standards. However, given that water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil and
compromise slope stability, additional measures should be implemented to ensure stability of the 1.5:1
cut slopes. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, impacts associated with
unstable or expansive geologic unit or soil, including in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, would be less than significant.
Mitioation
36. Prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit, the recommendations contained in
soils report(s), geotechnical report, and slope stability report shall be implemented.
37. Plants selected for slope landscaping shall be light-weight, deep rooted type vegetations that
require little water and are capable of surviving with little irrigation.
.6.e. Nolmpact: The project site is located in an urbanized area in which wastewatefinfrastructure is
currently in place. Therefore, the capacity of the $oils to support septic tanks or altemative waste water
systems is not relevant to the proposed project. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures
. are required.
G:IPlanning12006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlanningICEaAllnitiaIStudy - PHS.doc
. 19
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Sunnortina Information Sources Imoad Incomorat9d Imnact Imooct
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the v'
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the v'
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or v'
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
ouarter mile of an existing or proposed school? .
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of v'
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, v'
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or .
workino in the nroiect area? .
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would . v'
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workino in the nroiect area? .
g. Impair implementation of or physically intertere with an v'
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or 1055, . . v'
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
. 7.a,b. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not use, store, transport, generate, or
dispose of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Construction activities would involve the use
of commonly used potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids.
Operation of the proposed uses would involve the storage and distribution of small quantities of
. potentially hazardous materials in the form of medical device. materials, cleaning solvents, and
.. herbicides for landscaping, PHS currently maintains a Business Emergency Plan which is updated and
submitted to the County of Riverside Hazardous Materials Management Division annually for
operations permit renewal.. The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that all potentially hazardous materials
are contained, stored, used, and disposed of in compliance with applicable standards and regulations
and that the appropriate personnel are contacted in .the event of a hazardous materials-related
emergency. In the event the status of the land uses for the project site change, a new Business
Emergency Plan would be required to address the site and its related activities, Hazardous material
impacts anticipated from future uses will be analyzed under the future Specific Plan. All potentially.
hazardous materials shall be contained, stored,and used in accordance with manufacturers'
G:\Pjanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlanningICEOAllnitial Study' PHS.doc
20
instructions and handled in compliance with the Business Emergency Plan and other applicable
standards and regulations. Therefore, impacts are forecast to be less than significant as result of the
project.
7.c. No Impact: No schools exist or are proposed within one-quarter mile of the proposed project site;
therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7.d. No Impact: The proposed project is not on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment, and no impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7.e-f. No Impact: The proposed project is not located within an airport land iJse plan or within two miles of a
public airport or private air strip. No impact to people working in the area or airport uses is anticipated
. as a result of the proposed project.
7.g. No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an emergency response or evacuation plan area.
Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.
7.h. No Impact: The project site is within an urbanized area that is not considered to be a high fire risk
area. The proposed project complies with all applicable Building and Fire Codes. This project would
not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and
no impact is anticipated asa resl,Jlt of this project.
. G:lPlanningI2006IPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)lPlanningICEQAUnitial Study - PHS.doc
. . ~
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Issues and SUDoortinn Infannalion Sources Imnael IncorDorated Imead
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ,f
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water
I aualitv?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ,f
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
. pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been arantedl?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ,f
I or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
. substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ,f
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or .
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
f100dina on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ,f
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
aolluted runoff?
f. Require the preparation of a Water Quality Management ,f
Plan?
g. Place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area as ,f
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood .
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
maD?
h. Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures Which ,f
I would imDede or redirect flood flows? I
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ,f
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam? .
i. Inundation bv seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? . ,f .
.
Comment:
8.a, '. Less Than Significant Impar;t: The proposed project would permit development of an 84 acre ~ite.
Any wastewater impacts anticipated from the development of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 will be analyzed when.
a specific development is proposed for those parcels. Violation of water quality standards are not
anticipated by implementing the proposed project which will deliver its wastewater flows to the regional
wastewater plant. Wastewater will be delivered to the regional treatment plimt for treatment under
waste discharge requirements established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. In
compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction and occupancy to control
. storm water runoff pollution. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result.
G:lPlanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )IPlanninglCEQAllnitial Study. PHS.doc
22
8.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The Rancho California Water District provides water and reclaimed
water services to the project area. The proposed project does not include the injection into or
extraction from groundwater and would not create substantial subsurface cuts, which might impede
groundwater movement. No water wells would be used on the project site, as the Water District will
provide water supply. Therefore. the project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of
ground waters. either through direct additions or withdrawals. The project will create approximately 30
acres of impermeable surface on Parcel 4. The proposed project is required to comply with local
development standards. including lot coverage and landscaping requirements. which will allow for some
percolation and ground water recharge on the developed site. A less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8.c-e. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in the alteration of existing drainage
pattems and the amount and quality of surface runoff due to grading. and the construction of structures
and associated parking which result in the addition of impervious surfaces. Some changes to
absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff are expected whenever
development occurs on previously permeable ground. While absorption rates and surface runoff will
change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design which includes detention basins and
swales to accommodate runoff. These types of drainage conveyances, which safely and adequately
handle runoff, are anticipated to ultimately drain into the existing storm drains.
The proposed project will be required to accommodate the drainage created. as a result of the .
development with an on-site drainage plan and Best Management Practices (BMP's) subject to
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination
Discharge System (NPEDS) standards. Through implementation of the project Stormwater Prevention
Pollution Plan (SWPPP), erosion and siltation issues are controlled and with implementation. of the
project Water Quality. Management Plan (WQMP). surface run-off and water quality impacts are
controlled.
A Preliminary Drainage Study for TIM 35181 prepared by SB&O, Inc., on March 6, 2007, provided
preliminary drainage information related to the pad for ParCel 4. The development of Parcel 4 includes
two water quality basins to be located along the southern and eastern edge of the parcel. The basins
will serve to collect runoff from the project site and allow percolation. A large basin at the northeast
corner of the PHS pad will discharge to the existing 60" storm drain in Dendy Parkway. Approximately
19.5 acres will be routed to this basin. The smaller basin located near the proposed driveway off
Remington Avenue extension will discharge to a new storm drain system in Remington, which will
connectto the existing 60" storm drain. Site drainage will consist primarily of overland flow from paved
parking lots to curb and gutter with openings to allow for water quality flows to travel in a grass swale.
Roof runoff will collect at multiple locati.ons and discharge directly into storm drain system~. Water
. quality structures will be placed at several locations in the storm drain system to address. water quality
issues associated withroof runoff (Preliminary Drainage Study for TIM 35181 prepared by SB&O, Inc.
on March 6, 2007). Conditions of Approval for Tentative Map No. 35181 will include requiring the
developer to submit to the Public Works Department a Drainage Study and WQMP prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer for all future grading plans on the parcels created by TIM 35181. The
. alteration of existing drainagepattems for future development of Parcels 1,2, and 3 will be analyzed
under a future .specific Plan and subsequent development plans for.each ofthe parcels. A less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project. ..
8.f. . Less Than Significant Impact:The propOSed project will not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements established by the State of California. However; the project isrequired to
prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)pursiJant to the Municipal Separate Storm-Sewer
permit (MS4 permit) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The WQMP for
Parcel 4 development was submitted on November 30. 2006 and accepted by the Public Works
Department in May 2007. The water quality control measures identified in the WQMP have either been
incorporated into the design ofthe project or have been added to the project with specific conditions of
G:IPlanning12006\PACJ6.0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlanningICEOAllnitiaIStudy- PHS.doc
. 23
approval and are expected to eliminate potential adverse impacts to receiving waters. A project specific
WQMPwill be required for each parcel created and anticipated for future development under this
project. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project.
8.g-h. No Impact: As identified in the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located in the 100
Year Flood Boundary or in any of the Dam Inundation Areas, nor is it near any large bodies of water.
Structures will not be located within the 100-year floodplain as a result of implementing this project;
therefore, significant flood hazards are not expected to occur from developing the project site and no
impact is anticipated as a result.
8.1. No Impact The project site is not located within a dam inundation area. The project would not expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of a levee or dam failure. No impact is anticipated as a result of the project.
8.j. No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line which would be subject to inundation
by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
G:\Plannin9\2006\PA~370 PHS Tentative Map"(TTM35181)IPlanningICEQAllnitiaIStudy - PHS.doc
" 24
-
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
SlgniflC8nt Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Sunnnrtinn Infonnation Sources Imoact Inco';"'rated Imoact lm~~ct
a. PhvsicaIT" divide an established communitv? ./
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ./
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ./
natural community conservation plan? .
Comments:
9.a-b. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located in an urbanized industrial area of the
City. Implementation of an industrial building for Professional Hospital Supply is consistent with the
current Industrial Park (IP) General Plan land use designation and therefore will not divide an
established community or conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. However, the
proposed expansion for Professional Hospital Supply (PHS) presented unique circumstances, such as
building size, parking and loading needs, site location, and adequate access. In support of the proposed
opportunity for additional quality employment within the community, a General Plan Amendment was
proposed to designate the 84 acre site as a future Specific Plan Area.
It is anticipated that the future Specific Plan would include proposed commercial, retail, high-density
residential, and/or public institutional uses on the parcels created by Tentative Map No. 35181. The
proposed Development Agreement for the project site will allow for the vested right to develop the site
consistent with the uses permitted in a future Specific Plan. The future Specific Plan is anticipated to
implement the City of Temecula General Plan land use goals and policies by encouraging diverse, high-
quality land uses and mixed use development on the site. By accommodating .a diverse mix of land
uses the City can achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a range of income groups, a viable
commercial and employment base for residents, and high-quality urban lifestyles. Designating the land
for a future Specific Plan Area provides a guideline for future maximum density and intensity of
development, while still encouraging mixed cOmmercial, office, and residential development in a key
. location west of 1-15 and adjacent to the future Western Bypass corridor. The uses anticipated under
the future Specific Plan will be analyzed for General Plan consistency with the Specific Plan proposal.
The project is currentiyconsistent with the General Plan and land use impacts are anticipated to be . less .
than significant.
9.c. Less Than Significant Impact: The. project islcicated in a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Criteria Cell. The applicant filed a Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application.
. The City of Temecula has not identified this property as a candidate for habitat acquisition. The project
is consistent with the applicable Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan and any potential impacts are
. anticipated to be less than significant. . .
G:lPlanning\200~IPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlanningICEOAUnitial Study - PHS.doc
25
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless less Than
Signiftcant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SUDoortinn Information Sources Imaact IncorOOrated Imaact Imoact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ./
resource that would be of value to the region and the .
residents of the state? .
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ./
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
Qeneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
10.a-b. No Impact: The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource nor in the
loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site: The State Geologist has given
the City of Temeculaa classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have
the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However,
these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon
available data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA) of 1975. Furthermore, the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain
such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated as a. result of this project.
G:\Pla",iing\2006\PA~370 PHS TentatiVe Map (TTM35181)\PlanningICEOAllnitial Study - PHS.dOC
. .. ~
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation SignifICant No
Issues and Su'"''''''rtinn Information Sources Imrmct In~rated Imnact Imnact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ./
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
anencies? .
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ./
nroundborne vibration or nroundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ./
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
oroiect?
d. A substantial temoorarv or periodic increase in ambient ./
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing..
without the nroiect? .
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 7
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ./
the project expose people residing Dr working in the
proiect area to excessive noise levels? .
Comments:
11.a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The existing noise environment in the
project area is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways as well as industrial business
operations. The maximum noise level allowed is determined by land use. The City of Temecula
General Plan Noise Element specifies a maximum allowed noise level of 75 dBA CNEL may be
generated from industrial land uses. This standard represents the maxirnum level of noise exposure on
any community from a light industrial use. The proposed development for Parcel 4 is anticipated to
generate less than significant noise levels based on the use, location, and standard operations. Noise
levels expected to be generated from anticipated future commercial, public institutional. and/or
residential land uses will be analyzed with the future Specific Plan. Impacts from future anticipated uses
will be subject to noise analysis and standard mitigation measures if an impact is significant. .
there are no' known noise sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the project site; however, there are
several residences located above the project site within the hills to the west. These residences are
located a substantial distance from the project site, but the potential for noise impacts'could still be
. significant. For that reason, long term noise impacts associated with distribution trucks. and
. loading/unloading operations will be required to be within noise level standards established by the
Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan. The following shall be required as part bf the
mitigation monitoring prOgram to ensure all noise impacts associated with the project area less than
significant level. . .
. Any potential noise impacts will be reduced to a less than significant. level with implementation,
monitoring, and enforcement of the following mitigation measure.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlanningICEQAllnitial Study - PHS.doc
. 27
38. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis
prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to ensure that noise levels will not exceed an Ldn of
75 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 55 dBA interior at the receptor. The analysis shall include
requirements such as special design measures to protect surrounding noise sensitive uses from
ultimate projected operational noise levels.
11.b. Less Than Significant Impact: Construction activities are anticipated within the proposed project that
could expose persons working in the area to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. However, noise from construction of the project is temporary and required to
comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity to Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to
6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in industrial areas. Less than significant impacts
are anticipated as a result.
11.c. Less Than Significant Impact: The existing noise environment in the project area is dominated by
traffic noise. from nearby roadways as well as industrial business operations. The heaviest traveled
roadways in the vicinity of the project area include Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway, which are
located south and east of the project site. Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are typical of noise
levels experienced within urbanized areas throughout the City of Temecula. The operation of
mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, fans, and related equipment may generate additional
audible noise levels; however, mechanical equipment would be located within buildings or shielded
.from nearby sensitive noise receptors to attenuate noise and avoid conflicts with future commercial,
public institutional, and/or residential uses. Therefore, operation of mechanical equipment within these
areas would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels. No significant impact would occur and
no mitigation measures would be required.
11.d. Less Than Significant Impact: The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient
noise. levels during construction. However, noise from construction of the project will comply with City
ordinances regulating the hours of activity to Monday through Friday from 6:30a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and
Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in industrial areas. In addition, the project site is within an
industrial area where currently the closest residential units are over one-quarter mile away and will not
be impacted from temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Less than significant. impacts are
anticipated.
11.e-f, No Impact: This project is not within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. Therefore, people
working in the project area will not be exposed to .excessive noh,e levels generated by an airport and no
impacts will result from this project.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlanningICEOAllnitial Study - PHS.doc
28
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Sunnnrtinn Information Sources Imoact IncorOOrated Imoo" Imooct
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ./
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ./
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? ,
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ./
construction of reolacement housinQ elsewhere?
Comments:
12.a. Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing
infrastructure and roadways. Development of the project site would result in the extension of roads
and/or major infrastructure that may cause some people to relocate to, or within Temecula to be closer
to their place of employment. Future population and housing impacts expected from anticipated future
uses will be analyzed under a future Specific Plan. Currently, the proposed project would not induce
growth' beyond' what is projected in the City of T emecula General Plan because industrial land uses, '
such as PHS, were anticipated for the Industrial Park (IP) areas of the City (Page LU-21). In addition,
the proposed project is largely intended to implement the City's General Plan goals by providing for
additional quality employment opportunities, and supporting the existing Professional Hospital Supply
(PHS) corporation expansion by providing for a 608,934 square foot facility to include supporting office,
warehouse, and distribution space. Substantial population growth is not anticipated as a result of the
project and impacts will be less than significant.
12.b-c.No Impact: No residential properties currently exist on the project site; therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not displace existing housing, nor would it displace numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur and no
mitigation ,measures are required.
G:IPlanning\2006\PA06'()370 PHS TenlativeMap (TTM35181)IPlanningICEOAllnitial Study - PHS.doc '
, 29
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public serVices:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless less Than
Significant Mitigation SignifICant No
Issues and SuDDOrtloo_lnformatton Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Imrmct
a. Fire protection? .,/
b. Police protection? ./
c. Schools? .,/
d. Parks? ./
e. Other public facilities? .,/
Comments:
13.a-e.Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project for a 608,934 square footindustrial building and
. future anticipated commercial, public institutional, and/or residential development of the 84 acre site will
have a less than significant impact on upon public facilIties. The project will not result in a need for new
or altered fire, police, or recreation facilities because the project is consistent with the Industrial Park
(IP) land use designation analyzed as part ofthe General Plan. The General Plan anticipated for this
type of development in the designed IP areas of the City. Future impacts expected from anticipated
.future commercial, public institutional, and/or high-density residential uses described in the
Development Agreement (PA07-0220) will be analyzed under a future Specific Plan. The project as
proposed will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for new or altered schoul facilities
because there will not be residential dwellings being developed under this approval, and residential
development typically triggers the need for new or expanded school facilities. However, sewer and
water service will need to be extended to serve the development. The Rancho Califomia Water District
(RCWD) has been made aware of this project and indicated sewer and water service is available and
may be extended tothe site upon agreement between the property owner and RCWD. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2006\PAO~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PtanninglCEQMnitial 5l\Jdy - PHS.doc
30
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SUODQrtina Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ./
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction ./
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Comments:
14.a. No Impact: The project is located within an industrial zone planned for this type of development. The
project will not increase the use of recreational facilities or cause the deterioration a recreational land.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.b. No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational facility. The project
will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
G;\Planning\2006\PA06'()370 PHS Tentative Map (TIM35181 )\PlanninglCEOAllnitial Study - PHS.doc
31
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SupportinQ Information Sources Imoact InCOrDorated Imoact Imeact
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ./
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ration on roads, or conaestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ./
service standard established by the county congestion
manaaement aaencv for desianated roads or hiahwavs?
c. Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either ./
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ./
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incomoatible uses le.a., farm eauiomentl?
e. Result in inadequate emerQency access? ./
f. Result in inadequate oarkina capacity? ./
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ./
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicvcle racks)? .
Comments:
15.a-b. Less than Significant Impact: The project proposes a 608,934 square foot industrial medical supply
warehouse (including 82,476 square feet of office use), and approximately 178,000 square feet of
commercial retail uses, 31,200 square feet of office uses, a small percentage of high density
residential, and/or public institutional facilities on 84 gross acres. The anticipated land uses other than
the proposed industrial development will be subject to further review and approval when the exact uses
are determined and analyzed as part of a future Specific Plan. The applicant prepared a traffic study,
entitled Professional Hospital Supply Traffic Impact Analysis, dilted October 20, 2006, by Urban
Crossroad, which analyzed the "worse case" conservative conditions based on the proposed industrial
development and anticipated future uses. The analysis reviewed existing trafflc conditions in the
vicinity of the project site, as well as the potential project impacts at the following intersections adjacent
to the project site.:
. Driveway A (NS) at Remington Avenue (EW)
,
. Winchester Road (NS) at Remington Avenue (EW)
. Driveway B (NS) at Dendy Parkway (EW)
. DiazRoad (NS) at Winchester Road (EW)
. Enterprise CircIEi(NS) at Winchester Road (EW)
. Jefferson Avenue (NS) at Winchester Road (EW)
. 1-15Southbound Ramps (NS) at Winchester Road (EW)
. 1-15 Northbound Ramps (NS) at Winchester Road (EW)
G,IPlanning12ooaipA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanningICEaAllnitial Study - PHS.doc
. 32
.._--.
The General Plan has established Level of Service (LOS) D as the lowest acceptable level of service
for traffic circulation within the City of Temecula. All intersections within the study area currently
operate at LOS D.or better during the peak hours. The proposed development at build out is projected
to generate approximately 14,364 trip-ends per day with 613 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak
hour and 1,386 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak hour. Approximately 70 percent of the
Professional Hospital Supply (PHS) warehousing trips are being relocated from existing facilities in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. .
The proposed project is anticipated to be built out in 2009; therefore the traffic analysis was based on
three years of background traffic growth at a rate of two percent per year for a total of six percent
(Traffic Impact Analysis, 2006, page 4-7). For 2009, with the addition of estimated projec.t traffic plus
traffic from future adjacent development, all study area intersections are expected to operate at LOS D
or better at peak hours with the exception of the intersections of Diaz Road at Winchester Road and
Jefferson Avenue at Winchester Road (Traffic Impact Analysis, 2006, page 5-1). It should be noted
that without the addition of the proposed Temecula Education Center all intersections will operate at a
LOS "D" or better. .
To address site specific circulation and access, the following public improvements will be required as
conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 35181 and the Development Plan for PHS:
. . Construct Driveway A on Remington Avenue as a cross-street stop with full access
. Construct Driveway B on Dendy Parkway as a cross-street stop with full access
. Construct Dendy Parkway from Winchester Road to the eastern project boundary at its ultimate
half-section width as a secondary arterial in conjunction with development..
. . Construct Winchester Road from Remington Avenue. to Dendy Parkway at its ultimate half-
section width as a secondary arterial in conjunction with development
. Construct Remington Avenue from the driveway serving the retail (proposed Pad 3) to
Winchester Road at its ultimate full section width as a local road in conjunction with
development
. .
. Construct the extension of Remington Avenue west of Winchester Road. Install a stop control
on the eastbound leg of Remington Avenue for an all~way stop eontrolled intersection
. Stripe a 200 foot northbound left turn pocket at. the intersection of Winchester. Road at
Remington Avenl,Je .
To address off-site. improvements, participation in funding of construction for improvements which are
. needed to serve 2009 conditions shall be required through the payment of City of Temecula
Development Impact Fees (DIF) aM Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees
(TUMF). Payment of these fees will help support Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that
reduce traffic congestion in these areas. Specific CIP projects, such as the construction of/he French
Valley Parkway overpass and interchange with the 1-15 freeway, and the extension of Cherry Street
and the construction of the Western By-Pass Corridor, are anticipated to mitigate impacts along
Winchester Road, including the impacted intersections of Diaz Road atWirichester Road and Jefferson
Avenue at Winchester Road, at the completion of cumulative projects such as tlie Temecula Education
Center. .
. .
. .. ..
The Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and the applicant identifies pu~lic road
improvements that will be accomplished as part of the Owner's development obligations. These
improvements include the following and have been taken irito consideration in the analysis of potential
significant impacts related to traffic/circulation:
G:\Planning\2OO61PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\Planning\CEQA~nitlal Study - PHS.doc
. 33
. I
The General Plan has established Level of Service (LOS) D as the lowest acceptable level of service
for traffic circulation within the City of Temecula. All intersections within the study area currently
operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. The proposed development at build out is projected
to generate approximately 14,364 trip-ends per day with 613 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak
hour and 1,386 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak hour. Approximately 70 percent of the
Professional Hospital Supply (PHS) warehousing trips are being relocated from existing facilities in the
immediate vicinity of the project site.
The proposed project is anticipated to be built out in 2009; therefore the traffic analysis was based on
three years of background traffic growth at a rate of two percent per year for a total of six percent
(Traffic Impact Analysis, 2006, page 4-7). For 2009, with the addition of estimated project traffic plus
traffic from future adjacent development, all study area intersections are expected to operate at LOS D
or better at peak hours with the exception of the intersections of Diaz Road at Winchester Road and
Jefferson Avenue at Winchester Road (Traffic Impact Analysis, 2006, page 5-1). It should be noted
that without the addition of the proposed Temecula Education Center all intersections will operate at a
LOS "D" or better. .
To address site specific circulation and access, the following public improvements will be required as
conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 35181 and the Development Plan for PHS:
. Construct Driveway A on Remington Avenue as a cross-street stop with full access
.. Construct Driveway B on Dendy Parkway as a cross-street stop with full access
. Construct Dendy Parkway from Winchester Road to the eastern project boundary at its ultimate
half-section width as a secondary arterial in conjunction with development.
. . Construct Winchester Road from Remington Avenue to Dendy Parkway at its ultimate half-
. section width as a secondary arterial in conjunction with development
. Construct Remington Avenue from the driveway serving the retail (proposed Pad 3) to
Winchester, Road at its ultimate full section width as a local road '. in conjunction with
, development
· Construct the extension of Remington Avenue west of Winchester Road. Install a stop control
on the eastbound leg of Remington Avenue for an all-way stop controlled intersection .
· Stripe a 200 foot northbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Winchester Road at
Remington Avenue
To address off-site improvements, participation in funding of construction for improvements which are
needed to serve 2009 conditions shall be required through the payment of City of Temecula
Development Impact ,Fees (DIF) and Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees
(TUMF). Payment.of these fees will help support Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that '
reduce traffic congestion in these areas. Specific CIP projects,' such as the construction of the, French
, Valley Parkway overpass and intercharigewith the 1-15 freeway, andUie extension of Cherry Street
" and, the construction of the Western By-Pass Corridor, are anticipated to mitigate impacts along
Winchester Road, including the impacted intersections of Diaz Road atWirichester Road and Jefferson ' ,
Avenue at Winchester Road, at the comPletion of cumulative projects such as the Temecula Education.
. Center. '
The Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and the applicant identifies publiC road
improvements that will be accomplished as .part of the Owner'sdevelopmerit obliglltions. These
improvements include the following and have been taken into consideration in the analysis of potential
significantimpacts related to traffic/circulation: ' ,
G:\P!anning\2006\PA~370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\Pl3nniOgICEOAUnitial Study - PHS.doc
'34
. Owner shall construct the Remington Road extension and access points from the Property to
Remington Road
. Dedicate full section right-of'way for the Westem Bypass within the project boundaries
. Provided the Western By-Pass is constructed, Owner shall construct, at its own expense, any
connector roads or on or off ramps from the Property to the Westem By-Pass
Additicin on-site requirements that occur as part of the conditions of approval include sight distance at
the project entrances to be reviewed with respect to Caltrans and City of Temecula sight distance
standards at time of preparation of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans, on-site
traffic signing and striping to be detailed in conjunction with construction plans for the project site and
implemented prior to occupancy, and stop signs, stop bars and stop legends to be provided at the
project access points. With implementation of the required improvements and fees as part of the
conditions of approval traffic impacts from this project are anticipated to be a less than significant.
15.c. No Impact Development of the proposed project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks.
This site is not within the French Valley Airport influence area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of
the project
15.d. No Impact: The project will not increase hazards to safety from design features. The project is
designed to current City standards and will not pose any hazards from sharp curves or dangerous
. intersections. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.e. No Impact: The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to
nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and provides for adequate ingress and
. egress from the site. The project does not interfere with access to nearby uses. The Fire and Police
Departments have reviewed the proposed' project and have determined that adequate emergency
access has been provided. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. .
15.f. Less than Significant Impact: The project proposes a 608,934 square foot industrial medical supply
warehouse (including 82,476 square feet of office use), and future industrial, commercial, retail, office,
public institutional, and/or high density residential development on an 84 acre site. Development of the
608,934 square foot industrial building for Professional Hospital Supply. (PHS) will compromise
approximately 30 acres of the 84 acre project. The City of T emecula requires. parking be provided at a
. ratio of 1 space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse and 1 space per 300 square feet of office. The
. City's parking ordinance does not address large scale distribution facilities such as the proposed
project; however,otherjurisdictions in southem Califomia do. Based on City standards a total of 801
parking spaces are required forthe PHS project. The project will provide a total of 399 on site parking
spaces. Based on PHS's unique operations, in which warehouse/distribution activities run seven days a .
weekl24 hours a day in three shifts with approximately 245 emplciyeespershift, .an altemate parking
. plan has been implemented.. ReCognizing thatdi!ltribution facilities require above average loading
. capacity and typically have lower employee counts; 399 parking spaces is adeqiJate for the facility size.
and use. . Thealtemate parking plan is I:)ased upon the inverse relationship between loading capacity
for fright movement aM employee parking requirements. If the use on Parcel 4 were to. Change in the
future, in Which the required amount of warehOuse storage and loading areas were to decrea~e, and
employee parking needs were to increase, the site can accommodate additional automobile parking by
re-stripping the loading areas.. The other three developable parcels will be required to provide
. adequate parking based on the parking requirements for eacl:luse specified. in the future Specific Plan.
Therefore, the project will not result in. inadequate parking capacity and. impacts. are anticipated to be
less than significant. .
G:\Plailni"g\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlanninglCEOAUnitial Study -. PHS.doc
35 . .
15.g. No Impact: Transit Service for the project site is currently served by the Riverside Transit Authority
(RT A). The surrounding industrial area has established alternative transportation routes (Le. bus and
bicycle routes) along Winchester Road and Diaz Road. New bus facilities and/or routes were not
required as a result of the proposed project. The project will be required to be designed consistent with
adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting this alternative transportation. No conflict or adverse
impact to adopted alternative transportation policies, plans or programs is forecast to occur from
implementing the proposed project and therefore, no impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Plannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\P1anning\CEQA~nltial Study - PHS.doc
36
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless less Than
Issues and Sunnnrtinn Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Imnact IncorOorated Imoact Imoact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ./
aoolicable Reaional Water Qualitv Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or ./
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? .
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water ./
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies. available to serve the ./.
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or exoanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ./
provider which serves or may serve the. project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
. demand in addition to the provider's existing'
commitments?
f. . Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ../
accommodate the nroiect's solid waste disoosal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ./
renulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
16.a-b,e.Less Than Significant Impact: Development of the proposed project will have an incremental effect
upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General
Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General. Plan would not significantly impact wastewater
services." Since the project implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply
with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public
Works. Potential impacts would be less than signifiCant and no mitigation measures are required.
16.c. Less Than Significant Impact: The development of the parcel will require or result in the construction
of. new storm water drainage faCilities onsite that will connect to the. existing system currently in place.
The design of the existing system offSite is expected to be sufficient to handle this project and will not
require. the expansion of existing facilities (Preliminary Drainage Study for TTM35181 prepared by
SB&O, Inc. on March 6, 2007). The alteration of existing drainage patterns for future development of
. Parcels 1,2,ahd 3 will be analyzed under a future Specific Plan and subsequent development plans for
. each of the parcels. The project has been conditioned to address storm drainage flows that would.
result from the proposed development. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of
Approval for Tentative Map No; 35181 and Development Plan for Parcel 4, which required submittal of
a drainage study with the initial grading plan check.. With implementation of the drainage study
recommendations, impacts associated with storm water drainage would be less than significant. '.
16.d. Less Than Significant Impact: While the proposedprojecl will have an incremental impact upon
existing systems, the project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded .
water entitlements. Adequate water supplies have been identified by the Ranch.o California Water
G:lPlanning\2006IPAOe.Q370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )lPlanninglCEOAllnitial Study - PHS.doc
37
District to meet the current and immediate future demands in its service area, including the proposed
project. Therefore, a less than significant impact is expected.
16.f-g. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity.
According to the General Plan Environmenta/lmpact Report (EIR), page 5.14-5, and the County Solid
Waste Management Plan adequate landfill disposal capacity exists within the regional landfills to meet
current and future demands with the incorporation and continued expansion of recycling programs and
opportunities. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated
through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City.
Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlannlngICECAUnitial Study - PHS.doc
38
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
. Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant n':a
Issues and Sunrv'Jrunn Information Sources . Imoael Incomorated Imoael 1m
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ./
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California historv or nrehistorv?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually ./
. limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
oroiects, and the effects of orobable future oroiects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will ./
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directlv or indirectlv? .
Comments:
17.a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project is for a Development .
Agreement (PA07-0220) and General Plan Amendment (PA07-0048), which will authorize the
development of an approximate 84 acre site, a Tentative Tract Map (TIM 35181, PA06-0370) to
subdivide the 84 acre site into four developable parcels and one 16 acre easement parcel for slope and
drainage purposes, and ~ Development Plan on Parcel 4 for a three-story 608,934 square foot
industrial warehouse/distribution building. Industrial development of this type is allowed in the Light
Industrial land use designation and conditionally permitted in the Light Industrial zone. A future Specific
Plan will define the anticipated commercial, retail, high density residential, and public institutional land
uses for three of the four developable parcels. . The entire project site is located in an urbanized area
. surrounded by industrial and commercial land uses. Portions of the site have been previously graded
and disturbed, and contain no biological resources or any habitat suitable to support any MSHCP-
covered species. Implementation of the proposed project would potentially affect sensitive vegetative
communities, habitats of sensitive animal species, raptcir nests, and the burrowing owl. No threatened
or endangered plant species were observed on site. Implementation of mitigation measures as
previously described within this Initial Study would ensure that impacts to habitat and associated animal
species are reduced to a less than significant level. (
. .
. .
. . .
As described previously, prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. are known to exist within the project
site. Mitigation would ensurethatdevelopmentwould not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological or paleontological resource. . . .'
. .
Therefore, with mitigation, development of the proposed project would riot degrade the quality ofthe
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of. 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 major periods of Califomia history or prehistory.
G:\Planning\2006IPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PlannlnglCEQAUnitial Study. PHS.doc
. ~
H.b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The project site would be developed in
conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. Cumulative effects for
the industrial development of this site were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Without cumulative traffic (estimated proposed project traffic plus traffic from future adjacent
development of the T emecula Education Center) all study area intersections' are expected to operate at
acceptable levels at peak hours. All cumulative impacts for the various anticipated land uses of the
subject site will be analyzed under a future Specific Plan. All other cumulative resource issues were
found to be consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. Given the project's
consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the
development of the proposed project will not have a significant impact.
17.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project will not have environmental
effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. Potential
impacts include short-term construction effects and the long-term effects that result from converting a
property from its existing setting to a developed site. Most of the potential adverse impacts are either
not significant without mitigation or they can be controlled to a less than significant impact with
identified mitigation measures. Several potential impacts (aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural
resources, geology) require extensive' mitigation to ensure that impacts are controlled to a less than
significant level. .
. . .
. G:\Planning\2OO6\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PtanningICEOAllnitial Study - PHS.doc
'. .. ~ ".
"
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analvses and state where thev are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed bv mitiaation measures based on the earlier analvsis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which thev address site-soecific conditions for the oroiect.
Comments:
18.a. The City's General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report were used as areferenced source in
preparing the Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of T emecula Planning
Department located at 43200 Business Park Drive. '
18.b. Impacts to habitat from the approved Western Bypass were previously addressed by mitigation
measures based on an earlier analysis.
18.c. The mitigation measlires are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is attached.
SOURCES
, 1. Air Quality Impact Analysis Report prepared by Urban Crossroads (October 20, 2006)
2. Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment Report prepared by Cogstone Reso'urce Management,
Inc. (August 2006)
3. Archaeological Testing Program prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (March 2007)
4. , Biological Technical Report prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (March 23, 2007)
5. , Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment prepared Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (March 23, 2007}
6. City ofTemecula General Plan (Apn'I12, 2005)
7. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (April 12, 2(05)
',8. ' FirialHeport on Prehistoric Site Boundary Testing and Survey of a Historic Homestead at CA-RIV-
, 237lH Temecula, California prepared byCogstone Resciu~Management Inc. (October 2005}
, ,9. ,Jlirisdictional Delineation Report prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc, (June 26, 2007)
10. Limited Percolation Study for Temecula 32 - PHS Building Site prepared by Geo Tek, Inc. (October 13,
2006)' ,,' , '
11. ' Preliminary Drainage Study for TIM 35181 prepared by SB&O, Inc. (March 6, 2007)
'12. ' Preliminary Geotechnical Evaiuation for T emecula 32 prepared by GeoT ek, Inc. (July 2006)
, '
13. Preliminary Slope Stability Evaluation prepared by GeoTek, Inc. (March 21, 2007)
14. 'Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Urban Cro~sroads (October 20, 2006)
G:\Planning\2006IPAo&.o370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )IPlannlnglCEOAllnitlal Study' PHS.doc
41
ATTACHMENT NO.8
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
G:IPlanning\2006\PA0EHl370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)IPlanningIPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
20
Project Description:
Location:
Applicant:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Temecula Properties, LLC, Planning Application Nos. PA07-0220
(Development Agreement), PA07-0048 (General Plan
Amendment), PA06-0370 (Tentative Tract Map No. 35181), and
PA06-0369 (Development Plan) for Professional Hospital Supply
(PHS)
Northwest corner of Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway
The Garrett Group
One BetterWorld Circle
Temecula, CA 92590
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
. Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Aesthetics
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings.
1. . To ensure that the scale and character of proposed
development along the hillside does not detract from the natural
views, all structures associated with the development shall be
designed in conformance with the General Plan requirements and
Development Code standards. Specifically, the visual mass of the
buildings along the hillside shall be reduced through breaks in the
structure, tree plantings, articulation of the fa~de, and other
architectural devices.
2. The development shall be designed to minimiZe
. detrimental impacts on surrounding properties, including, but not
limited to, visual, noise, air quality and other environmental
impacts. Strategies for minimizing the impacts include protecting
any future residenti.alareas adjacent to industrial and commercial
development through screening of circulation areas, loading i:lreas
and trash collection points or other areas that could potentially be
. disruptive to the character of the. adjacent areas.
Planning' staff will verify compliance with. the above mitigation
. measures as part of the building plan check review process
. Prior to issuance of building permits
Planning Department
. G:\Planningl2OO6lPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TiM35181 )\PlanninglCEOAlMitigation Monitoring Program.doc
. 1
General Impact:
Air Quality
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially t.:> an
existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Mitigation Measure:
3. Adhere to best management practices which include the
application of water on disturbed soils twice daily, covering haul
vehicles, replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical and
restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph to control
fugitive dust.
4. Trucks hauling dust, sand, gravel, or soil are to be covered
or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance
with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code.
5. During site grading, underground, and building activity
construction, the contractor shall adhere to SCAQMD Rule 431.2
(diesel fuel with sulfur content of 15ppm by weight or less).
6. . During construction, off-road construction equipment shall
be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per
manufacturers' specifications and restrict diesel equipment idling
. to no more than five minutes.
7. Limit application of paint to 50 gallons per day and use of
Zero-VOC paints (assumes no more than 150 gram/liter of VQC).
Specific Process:
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the grading plan and building plan review
process
Mitigation Milestone:
. Responsible Monitoring .
Party: . .
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and building permits .
Planning Department and Public WorkS Department
General Impact:
Biological Resources
. Have a substantial. adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special .status species in local or regional plans, policies; or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or have a substantial adverse
. effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive naturatcommunity
G:IPlanning\2006IPA0lHl370 PHS Tenlative Map (TTM35181 )lPlanninglCEOAlMitigation Monnoring Program.doc
2
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
Califomia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
SelVice.
Mitigation Measure:
8. A pre-construction burrowing owl sUlVey is required 30
days prior to commencement of construction. If any burrowing owl
is found on site, the CDFG shall be consulted, and a passive
relocation effort shall be undertaken outside of the nesting
season. No disturbance of active nests shall occur.
9. A qualified biologist shall determine if any active raptor
nests occur within the. limits of disturbance prior to
commencement of grubbing, clearing, or grading activities.
10. No brushing, clearing, or grading shall occur within 500
feet of occupied tree-nesting raptor habitat during the raptor
breeding season (typically December to July).
11." In order to ensure MBT A compliance, clearing of native
vegetation shall occur outside the breeding season of most avian
species (February 1 through September 15) unless a pre-
construction nesting bird sUlVey determines that no nesting birds
are.present. The City of Temecula shall approve activities after
concurrence is received. from the wildlife agencies.
12. Lighting within the proposed project adjacent to preselVed
habitat shall. be of the lowest illumination allowed for human safety
and selectively placed; shielded, and directed away from
preselVed habitat.
13. Impacts to upland habitats and associated species shall be
addressed through participation in the MSHCP and payment of
the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees. The project is
located within the Riverside County Stephens' kangaroo rat HCP .
. Fee Assessment Area fee area.
Specific Process:
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
. measures as part of the grading plan check review process.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and building permits .
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Planning Department and Public Works Department
General Impact:
Biological Resources
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands
. as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. .
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanningICEOAlMitigation Monitoring Program.doc
. 3
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
14. Both federal Clean Water sections 404 and 401 pelmits
and a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement are required.
Copies of all required permits shall be provided to the City prior to
the start of construction and comply fully with all of the terms and
conditions of those permits and agreement.
15. Impacts to jurisdictional areas shall be mitigated at least a
1: 1 ratio through off-site creation or purchase of wetland credits
within an approved wetland mitigation bank.
Planning staff shall verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as part of the grading plan check review process
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and building permits
Planning Department and Public Works Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Cultural Resources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5,
. and disturb any human remains, including those. interred outside
of formal cemeteries.
16. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project
proponent shall prepare an assessment of the archaeological and
cultural resources on the 84 acre project site. The assessment
shall be performed by a qualified archaeologist in conjunction with
the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians in order to determine
whether there are cultural resourCes on the property and eValuate
the significance of any such resources. Any such testing shall
involve the Pechanga Tribe, and all tests to determine impacts
should be completed prior to the issuance of grading permits;
17. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project .
proponent shall conduct further cultural resources testing on the
site in the. areas which have been designated by the Pechanga
Tribe as likely to contain cultural resources. Prior to the testing,
the project proponent shall meet with representatives or the
. . Pechanga Tribe and the City to determine the specific additional
. areas that shall be tested. Representatives of thePechanga Tribe
shall be preseritduring the testing and the project proporient shall
meetand confer in good faith with such Tribal representatives with
respect to comments they may have on the testing. In the event
additional mitigation measures are necessary as a result of
cultural resources discovered the testing, the Director of Planning
shall be authorized, following Ii Director's Hearing, toimp9se such
new conditions or modify existing. conditions. as necessary to
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\f'lanninglCEQAIMitigatiori Monitoring Program.doc
4
mitigate any additional cultural resources impacts which may be
identified.
18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
proponent shall enter into a Treatment Agreement with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians. This agreement will address
the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human
remains that may be uncovered during construction as well as
provisions for tribal monitors.
19. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio
Indians shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and
ground-breaking activities,. including further surveys, to be
compensated by the project proponent. The Pechanga Tribal
monitors shall have the authority to temporarily stop and redirect
grading activities to evaluate the significance of any
archaeological resources discovered on the property, in
conjunction with the archeologist and the Lead Agency.
20. A qualified archaeologist monitor shall be present during
all earthmoving activities. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or redirect construction work in the vicinity of the
find until it can be evaluated by the project archaeologist in
conjunction with the Pechanga Tribe. In the event of a new find,
further testing, excavation, and/Or reporting may be required.
21. If cultural resources are discovered during the project
construction (inadvertent discovenes), all work in the area of the
find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives
of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to
investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatlnGnt
and mitigation. .
22. If human remains are encountered, all activity shall cease
and the County Coroner must be notified immediately. State
Health and Safety Code Section. 7050.5 state that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of the origin and until treatment pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 has been decided. ~he Coroner
shall determine if the remains are prehistoric, and shall notifY the
State Native American Heritage Conimission (NAHC) if applicable.
Further actions shall be determined by the desires of the Most
Likely Descendent (MLD): . .
.. .
. . .
. .
23. The landowner shall agree to relinquish ownership of all
cultural resourCes, including all Luiseiio sacred,items, burial goods
and all archeologiCal artifacts that are found on the project site to
the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and
disposition. ..
G:\Plannlngl2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PtanninglCEOAIMitigation Monitoring Program.doc
.5.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
('
24. All sacred sites within the project area are to be avoided
. and preserved.
25. The %-acre of cultural site CA-RIV 237 located in the
northeast corner of Planning Application 06-0370 shall be
preserved in Open Space and recorded with the County Recorder
of Riverside County as a conservation easement for preservation
purposed in perpetuity. The %-acre of CA-RIV 237 shall not be
subject to development, archeological testing or ground-disturbing
activities.
The. Planning Department shall be notified in the event any
resources are discovered. Place the above Condition of Approval.
on this project to require cultural resource monitoring during all.
earthmoving activities.
On-going during all earthmoving phases of the project
Planning Department and Public Works Department
Cultural Resources
Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of
paleontological resources.
26. A qualified paleontological monitor shall provide cultural
resources sensitivity training (a 15 min. presentation) for all project
personnel.
27. All impacts to the sandstone and fanglomerate members of
the Pauba Formation shall be monitoredfull time at the beginning
of grading. A trained paleontological monitor shall be present
during ground disJurbing . activities within the project area
determined likely to contain paleontological resources. Monitoring
will be adjusted to spot checking if initial monitoring shows
negative results.
28. Upon encountering any significant fossils, salvage of all
. fossils in.the area shall be conducted with additional field staff and
in accordance with modem paleontological techniques,
. .
. . .
29. Any significant fossils recovered shall be prepared to a
reasonable point of identification. . Excess sediment or matrix will.
be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulkandcostof )
storage; Itemized catalogs of all. material eollectedand identified.
shall be provided to the museum repository along with .the
. specimens.
G:\Planning\2OO6\PAoo:o370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )\PtanninglCEOAlMitigatlon MonitOring Program.doc
. 6
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
RespOnsible Monitoring
. Party:
30. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a report
documenting the results of the monitoring and any salvage
activities and the significance of the fossils shall be prepared.
31. Any significant fossils recovered, along with the itemized
inventory of the specimens, shall be deposited in a museum
repository for permanent curation and storage.
The Planning Department shall be notified in the event any.
resources are discovered. Place the above Condition of Approval
on this project to require cultural resource monitoring during all
earthmoving activities.
On-going during all earthmoving phases of the project
Planning Department and Public Works Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Miles~one:
. Responsible Monitorillg
. ... Party:
Geology and Soils
Expose people. or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong
seismic ground shaking.
32. Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with
local building ordinances shall be followed during the design oIall
structures.
33. . Subsequent geotechnical reviews shall be conducted prior
to the development of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 created by this project.
Building and Safety staff will verify compliance with the above
mitigation measure. as part of the grading and building plan. check
review processes.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and building permits
Planning Department, Building and Safety Department, and Public
Works Department
General Impact:
Geology and Solis
. .
.. .
. .
. .
. . .
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topSoil, be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become .
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-. or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
. collapse, or be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
. . G:\Plamilng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative MlOp (TTM35181)\PlanningICEOAlMitigation Moniloring Program.doc
7
Mitigation Measure:
. Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property. .
34. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the
applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department an erosion
control plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
Temecula Municipal Code, Section 18.15, Erosion and Sediment
Control.
35. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, landscape
plans shall be prepared for all slopes created by the grading and
. fill of these sites consistent with .Slope Planting Guidelines' and
the Development Code, and shall provide erosion contrul on
undeveloped portions of the site.
36. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the
recommendations contained in soils report(s), geotechnical report,
and slope stability report shall be implemented.
37. Plants selected for slope landscaping shall be light-weight,
deep rooted type vegetations that require little w;;iter and are
capable of surviving with little irrigation.
Planning, Public Works, and Building and Safety staff'WiII verify
compliance with the above mitigation measure as part of the
. grading and building plan check review processes. .
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and building permits
Planning Department, Building and Safety Department, and Public
, Works Department .
. .
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Noise
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
stimdards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
. or applicable standards of other agencies.
38. Prior to issuance ofa building permit, the project applicant
shall submit an acoustiCal analysis prepared. by a certified
acoustical engineer to ensure that noise levels will not exceed. an
Ldn of 75 dBA exterior or an .Ldn of 55 dBA interior at the
. receptor. The analysis shall include requirements such as special
design measures to protect surrounding noise sensitive uses from
ultimate projected operational nOise levels. .
Planning staff. will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measures as partofthebuilding plan check review process
. G:\Plannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )lPlannlnglCEOAlMitigation Monitoring Program.doc
.8.
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Prior to issuance of building permits
Planning Department
G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )IPlanninglCEQAlMltigation Monitoring Program.doc
. 9 .
. I
ATTACHMENT NO.9
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
G:IPlannlng\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181 )IPlannlnglPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
21
TOMARAS & OGAS, LLP
107SS-FScluPPsPoWAYPAIlI<WAY II2lIl- SANDuoco, CAUFORNIA 92131
'1'IiumoNE(ll5ll)~ - FAOIiIMIIE(ll5ll)777-6765 - WWW.MTOWlAW.OlIM
Kathryn A. Ogas
Brenda L T Omar.lS
koglU@mtowlaw.com
btomar.lS@m1owlaw.com
August 17, 2007
VIA FACSIMlLE and U.S. MAIL
. Dana Schuma, Associate Planner
City ofTemecula
Planning Department
432000 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Development Agreement (pA07-0220), General Plan. Amendment (pA07-0048),
Tentative Tract Map No. 35181 (pA06-0370), and Development Plan (pA06-
03(9) witb Minor Exception (pA07-0090) - Initio] StudylMitigated Negative
Declaration
Dear Ms. Schuma:
Our firm represents the Pechanga Band ofLuisei'ioJndians. The Pechanga Band of
Luisei'io Indians of the Pechanga Indian Reservation, a federally recognized Indian Tribe
(hereinafter "Pechanga Tribe"), submits the following comments on the Initial StudylMitigated
Negative Declaration for the Temecula 84/PHS Project. We request that these comments, as
well as subsequent comments submittedby the Pechanga Tribe, be included in the record for
approval of the Project.
As the City is aware, the Tribe has been working with the Garrett Group to address the
protection and treatment of the cI1ltural resources withiri the Project area, and intends to continue
working and cooperating with the Garrett Group in such efforts.
The Tribe has had the oppoItunity to review the Initial StudylMitigated Neg~
Declaration ,lDd finds that the conditions and mitigation prilposed to address Cllltural resources
are in line with the Tribe's prior co1TlDlent letters and suggested mitigation langUage.. As sueb, .
.. the Tribe is in agreeinent with the proposedmitige.tion. .
.The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to continued cooperation with the City ofTemecula
and the Garrett Group in protecting the invaluable Luisei'io cultural resources found. in the Project
Letter to Dana Schllma
Re: Temecula 84 ISIMITIGATED NEG DEC.
Page 2
area. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Laura Miranda at (951)
676-2768,~.2137.
Very Truly Yours,
TOMARAS & OGAS, LLP .
~. ----
'0J\QnJo. 0(-:" / ~~
BrendaL. Tomaras
. Attorneys for the Pechanga Band ofLuiseiio Indians
CC: Lauril Miranda, Deputy General Counsel
Pechanga Cultural Resources Department.
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
Nancy Daniels, Garrett Group
).
o lAJUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 0 HEAi:;tH SERVICES AGENCY 0
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
City ofTemecula
Planning. Department
C/o Dana Schuma, Associate Planner
PO BOX 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
R1I2~30 ~,~ID,
By. ~~Dejml,a,d
08 August 2007
RE: Notice of Negative Declaration Comment for PA07-0220, PA07-0048; PA06-370,
PA06-0369 and PA07-OO90 .
The Department of Environmental Health (DEli) has received and reviewed the Negative
Declaration and has no comments in objection to the project described above.
The development plan application for the tentative tract map 35181 and a development
plan with a minor exception for a 608,934 sf industrial building on 32 acres, and for the
future development of the remaining 52 aCres to include industrial, commercial, retail,
high-density residential and or public institutional facility land uses will not have a
significant impact upon the environment. A water and sewer availability letter shall be
required by the City ofTemecula at time of building plan submittal to the City.
Any food vending or restaurant use of the building shall.require food plan check
compliance by the County of Riverside DEH.
If your have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 951.955.8980
7IJ(tI!
Gregor Dellenbach, REHS
". ".'
Local Enforceinent Agency' I!O. Box 1280; RiverSide, CA 92502-1280 '.(909) 955.8982' FAX (909) 781.9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
Land.U.. and.Water Engineering..' Ro. BoXl206; Riverside, CA92502'1206... (9091955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 ; 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Aoor. Riverside. CA 92501 .
STAn; OF I":AI tR'lANlA
,~~~6i1iim~.~.ernnr
n, ",iii 2 7 11101 ,.
By
Planning Departr'ftent
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM S64
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 853-<1251 .
_(916)657_
Web SIte www.nahc-O'"'
..........: ds-""""@.............
August 22, 2007
Ms. Dana Schuma, Associate Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 9033
T ernecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: SCHiI2l107081042' CEOA Notice 01 Comllletion. draft Environmentallmoact Rell9fl WEIRI for Devefooment
AGreement for Professional HosDitaI SUDOlv (PHSI and Cilv of T emecula' General Plan Amendment Tentative Tract
MaD and a DeveloDment Plan: Riverside Countv Califomia
Dear Ms. SchumaJ:
The Native American IIelitage CoIhlllission is the state's Trustee A4Jenaf for Native American CUltural
Resoun:es. The California EnvIrormtenlaI Quailr Ad (CEOA) requires that any project that causes a SIIbslanlial
adverse change in the significance 01 an hlslorica1 resource, that indudes archaeological resources, is a 'significant
effect' requiring the prepallltion of an EnvilOlimentallmpact Report (EIR) per CEOA guidelines fi 15064.5(bXc). In
onferto comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse
impact on these resources within the 'area 01 potential effect (APEr, and if so, to mitigate that effect. To adequately
assess the projeckeIated impacts on histDlicaI R!SCIUICeS, the Commission reclOIIImends the faiIowing adion:
" Contactthe applilpliale CdlikRnia Historic R_lrdiJonaIion Center (CHRIS). ConIact InliInnation for the
Information Center nearest you is awailable fnJm the Slate 0IIice 01 Historic PrmrtatiOn (91~72T8)1 .
htto:Jlwww.ohD.oarks.ca.QOv/106MilesllC%20Roster.odf The record search will determine:
. If a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
. If any known cultural resources have already been reconled In or adjacent to the APE.
. If the probabilily is kiw, moderaIe, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.
'. If a survey is .required to dtoh"..,j.." whether previously. unreconled aJIturaI resources are present
" If an &lchaeological inYentDIy survey is required, the final stage is the prepalation ofa ",.If 'o;Jal reportdetaillng
the fincingS and recommendations of the reconIs search and field survey. . .
. The final report -muning site Iiinns, site significance, and mitigation ri1easur81S should be submitted .
ilnnleciaIl!Iy to the planning depadmenl All information regardng site locations, Native American human
remains, and associated funerary abjeds Ilhould be in a 88p8llIIe confidenliaI addendum, and not be made .
available for pubic disdosure.' . .
. The final writIen report 8hOuId be SUbblilled within 3 months after w<II1< has been compIelecI to the appIOpIiate
regional aIdlaeoIogicaIlnkRllldliu/1 Center.
" Contact the Native Amelican Herilage Commission (NAHC) for:
. . . A Sacred I.8nds Ale (SLF) 8NICh of the project area and infonnation on bibal coidacts In the project
vIciniIy thai may have addilioll8l cultural resourca infonnation. Please provide this office with th8 following
llllaIlOI'I fomlat to assistwith the Sacred I.8nds Ale search request USGS 7 5-mintdB ...~ citation
~name .lIMnshioranaeaRdseclion" .' . , .
.. . The NAHC ~ the use of Native Amedcan MoniIDnl to ensure proper IdentilicaIIon and care Jjven c:uItureI
rilsoun:es that may be discovered: The NAHC ~ that contact be made wilh ~e American . .
.... . CoIlIacts on the liItm< fled list to gel their inpIt on polI!ntiaI projecl: impact (APE). In scime .., the exIlIteIlO8 of . .'
. aNativeAmeticaJ.cuIbiraI resotII1:iiIsmay be known only to a lcQlIlribe(s). ' .... .' .
. ,.JLaCkof IlllIface evid8nce 01 arcIieOIoilical.resourcea do8SnOt preclUde their silbswface ~. .
. . UlIld agencies 8houIdlnclude III thelt mitiglitionplanprovisioni for the identiIicalion and evaluation 01
~,. ciseovet'ed lII'dleaIOljcaI reSources, per Cdlib11ia Envirur\glentaI Quailr Ad(CEOA) fi15064.5 (f).
In areas 01 Identified an:llaeolc9cal sensifivily, a certified 8Ichaeologist and aCl!lturally aIliIiaI8d Native
American, with knc"Jle llge in cuIlimd resouroes, 8houId monitDr811 gJOUrid-disIullling acliviIies. .
.. . Lead agencies 8houId include in their I!Iitigalion plan prgvisions ror the dispoeitionollllClJV8red 8Ifif3ds, in
. consuItaIion with cuItunlIIyal6lialad Native AInericans. '. '. .
" Lead agencies should include pRwisions for discov8IY 01 NaliveAmerican human remains or unmarked celneteries
In their mitigation plans. . .' . . .' . . .. .
. CEOA GuIde/ines,.SectiOn 15064.5(d)requires the lead agency toWOlkwith the. Native Americans Identified
'by this Commission if the initial Sludy IdenIifies the presence or 6keIy pre s ence of NativeAmerican humaia
remaiI~withintheAPE-.CEQ.6..GuIde/ines.provlde for,agreemenls.with ,Native.Ametican, Identified by tIie
. .:'0 ..,".,' '_' ".' ;_ ,'. . - .... .". .___ _: _ . _ _. p'
;: ., ,"
.,
,
NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated
grave liens.
.J Health and Safety Code ~7050.5. Public Resources Code ~5097.98 and Sec. ~15064.5 (d) of the CEQA
Guidetines mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a
location other than a dedicated cemetery.
.J Lead aoencies should consider avoidance as defined in &15370 of the CEQA Guidelines when sianificant cultural
resources are discovered durina the course of oroiect D1annina.
to contact me at (916) ~51 if you have any questions.
of Native Arrierican Contacls
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
PARKING STUDY
G:IPlannlngI2006lPA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (iTM35181)IPlahningIPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc
. . . .~
PHS PARKING STUDY
Backaround: Professional Hospital Supply (PHS) is a medical supply company
located in the City of Temecula. The proposed project creates a 615,450 square foot
warehouse/distribution facility to serve as their new distribution center and corporate
headquarters.
The City of Temecula has requested this parking study to show how the proposed
building can be parked in several different ways in order to meet the requirements of
PHS as well as other potential users in the future.
Warehouse ODerations/Parkina Reauirements: Distribution buildings are designed
much differently than regular industrial buildings. They are much larger (often 10-15
times larger than standard industrial buildings) and the majority of the space is allocated
to racking for merchandise. Because of the increased use of floor space for racking,
distribution operations have an extremely low employee count per square foot
compared to manufacturing or other industrial users. Since the movement of freight is a
major component of their operation, truck door requirements also increase significantly.
Recognizing that distribution facilities have lower employee counts, many jurisdictions
have adopted reduced parking requirements. In those jurisdictions that have not
adopted lower requirements, alternate parking plans are usually allowed. These
alternates are based upon the inverse relationship between truck door and employee
parking requirements.
The alternative parking plans show two different striping plans. The first plan stripes
only the number of parking spaces needed per the lower employee count and allows for
the extra truck door locations. The second plan shows how the site can accommodate
the number of spaces required by existing code. This added striping assumes as the
number of employees increase, the amount of storage space and freight decreases,
thus lessening the number of truck doors required. Therefore, areas in front of
unneeded truck doors are able to accommodate additional automobile parking. Some
of the jurisdictions that recognize the individual needs of large distribution facilities by
allowing future parking stalls to be shown in the truck courts include: The Cities of Los
Angeles, Riverside, Industry, and Chino along with the Counties of Riverside and San
Bernardino.
PHS Staffing Analysis: PHS operates 24 hours per day/seven days per week. The
analysis below shows the flow of employees throughout the day. Shift change overlaps
are shown to account for arriving and departing employees. In addition, since many
employees carpool, are dropped off, or take public transportation, actual car counts
were conducted to understand the maximum number of cars per shift.
PHS EMPLOYEE ANALYSIS
Max # Em 10 ees
259
274
298
88
42
# of Cars
213
225
245
72
35
The striping plan shown on the Development Plan provides 399 striped regular spaces
and 8 additional Handicap Accessible stalls as well as corresponding bicycle and
motorcycle parking. The alternate striping plan provides 778 stalls and 16 Handicap
Accessible stalls in addition to the corresponding Bicycle/Motorcycle spaces.
PARKING PLAN COMPARISON
Develo ment Plan
399
8
24
7
Alternate Plan
778
16
24
15
These two plans allow for as much flexibility as possible in the use ofthe building.
Initially, it can be striped according to PHS' use and allow for the maximum number of
truck bays. In the event that the building changes uses, a simple fe-striping allows for
more employees and fewer truck positions.
ATTACHMENT NO; 11
STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION
G:\Planningl2OO6\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanningIPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
. . 23 . .
c\
~:rrett Group
LInd &: R.eaI Estate Investment Management
""""",,~~l'<''''''''.;-.,,,;..'''_-N'_''',,_
(
. """"r'~''''''''''-'':''''"'''''~'--'''''~''''':;''~'''~"''''''''''''"'''''''t;~_....,.,........~....""",,",~,~__""""",_,,",,",,,"""''''''''=_'
August 15,2007
Dana Schuma
Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: PROFESSIONAL HOSPITAL SUPPLY
Dear Dana:
We are requesting exceptions in two areas in regards to the design of the corporate
headquarters for Professional Hospital Supply ("PHS"). As you know, we all share the
common goal of retaining PHS in the City of T emecula as a major employer, generator
of sales tax revenue, and good corporate citizen. Their growth has been tremendous
and it has been difficult to locate a site within the City limits that accommodates both
their needs as a corporate headquarters and distribution facility. The proposed site is
the only such site available but does require a higher FAR in order to achieve the facility
size required. Therefore, we are requesting an exception to the Floor Area Ratio
("FAR") not to exceed 45%. In addition to the huge benefit of retaining PHS iri the City
of Temecula, the following design enhancements have been made:
. . Enhanced architecture throughout
. Articulation and architectural features including a cornice atop the office portion
. . Planned truck routing providing for signature PHS vehicles along the front and
lesS attractive traffic in the back .
. An additional 5% of landscaping beyond that which is required
. '. . .
. Pedestrian friendly features inClude an auto court and separated autoltruck
parking; decreasing truck emissions in th~Qffice area
. . . . .
. .
. '. ....
: '. . : i~ .
. . Enhanced concrete areas to help cool th~ pedestrian environments and ~educe
asphalt coverage . .
. . Stat~f-the-art bio-swales and storm water treatment.
._...'I'"""""""-"...,...,..,.,_""""'...c..>'I...."",.".,"lJ"'J..,.""'.C'A~"h.V:."',.,.''''~~.<(_1,.:;.N''''''~..... t:I ...""'~~-
~._lIIlllll...4~
"
.:i:ll...dl
One BetterWorld Circle. Suite 300 <';. Temecula. California 92590 ;::,. Phone: 9SI.5n6_6'\~1i. ...'} J;'.... Q<:1 oCAL .to'll' A nO...._< .....L_L'_ -- _..~
('
c
Ms. Dana Schuma
August 15,2007
Page Two
. Larger trees than required in the pedestrian environment
. Light colored roofing to help cool and reduce interior heat gain
. Dual glazing glass exceeding the state title 24 requirements.
The enhanced architecture includes a cornice along the top of the office portion of the
building to provide visual screening and assure that the proportion is appropriate for the
three story office element. This cornice exceeds the 50' height limitation by
. approximately 8 inches. Therefore, we are also requesting an exception to
. accommodate this architectural feature.
We hope you will share our enthusiasm for the project and approve these two
exceptions. If you have any questions or if I can provide any further information, please
let me know.
Sincerely,
Nancy E. niels
Project Manager
--. .__...._---~
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0370 PHS Tentative Map (TTM35181)\PlanningIPClPC STAFF REPORT.doc
24
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING
COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
Planning Application Nos. PA07-0220, PA07-0048, PA06"0370, PA06-0369, & PA07-0090
Temecula Properties, LLC
Generally located at the northwest comer of Dendy Parkway and Winchester Road
A Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and
Development Plan with a Minor Exception for a 608,934 square foot industrial building on 32
acres, and for the future development of the remaining 52 acres to include industrial,
commercial, retail, high-density residential, and/or public institutional facility land uses
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project
will not have a significant impact upon the environment based upon a completed
Environmental Initial Study and the incorporation ofthe attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be issued in compliance with CEQA.
Dana Schuma, Associate Planner
Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Date of Hearing: September 5, 2007
Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be
heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project
in court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in wriUen correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,
the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Questions concerning the
project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental:
Case Planner:
G:lPlanuiDgI2OO7\PA07.0220 PHS IJevelopmeDlAgn:ementIPIanningINOPH PHS.doc