The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About082114 DH AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2014 1:30 P.M. TEMECULA CITY HALL Great Oak Conference Room 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Armando G. Villa, AICP, Director of Community Development PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Director of Community Development on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Director about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Director. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. Item No. 1 Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: 1:30 p.m. PA10-0348 Phased Tentative Parcel Map Linfield Christian School Karen Raftery A Phased Tentative Parcel Map to allow the existing Linfield Christian School to create five map phases comprised of one 3 -lot phase and four 1 -lot phases, ranging in size between 2.00 and 62.74 acres 31950 Pauba Road Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations Eric Jones NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the Director's Hearing. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.citvoftemecula.oro — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula, 6:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material may be accessed on the City's website — www.citvoftemecula.oro — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at the Temecula Civic Center, (951) 694-6400. STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING DATE OF MEETING: August 21, 2014 PREPARED BY: Eric Jones, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA10-0348, a Phased Tentative Parcel SUMMARY: Map to allow the existing Linfield Christian School to create five map phases, comprised of one 3 -lot phase and four 1 -lot phases, ranging in size between 2.00 and 62.74 acres, located at 31950 Pauba Road RECOMMENDATION: Approve with Conditions CEQA: Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Karen Raftery, on behalf of Linfield Christian School General Plan Public Institutional (PI) Designation: Zoning Designation: Plan Development Overlay No. 7 (Linfield Christian School) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Existing School/Public Institutional (PI) Lot Area: North: Rancho Vista Road, Existing Residential/Low Medium (LM) South: Pauba Road, Existing Residential/Low Medium (LM) East: Existing Residential/Very Low (VL) West: Temecula Valley High School/Public Institutional (PI) Existing/Proposed Existing: 91.08 Total Acres Phase 1 Parcel 1 = 2 Acres Parcel 2 = 6.63 Acres Parcel 3 = 2.52 Acres Phase 2 Parcel 1 = 5.93 Acres Phase 3 Parcel 1 = 62.74 Min/Max Allowable or Required 0.16 Acres G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0348 Linfield School TM\Planning\Hearing\STAFF REPORT.doc 1 Phase 4 Parcel 1 = 6.47 Phase 5 Parcel 1 = 4.79 Acres Total Floor Area/Ratio: N/A N/A Landscape Area/Coverage: N/A N/A Parking Required/Provided: N/A N/A BACKGROUND SUMMARY On December 15, 2010, Karen Raftery submitted Planning Application No. PA10-0348, Tentative Parcel Map No. 36098. The Map was originally designed to create financing opportunities for Linfield Christian School. On May 6, 2014, the applicant presented a final submission of the project to staff. This submittal represented a Phased Map consisting of five separate phases. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Tentative Parcel Map (No. 36098) will subdivide the existing four parcels of the Linfield Christian School campus and create a five -phased Tentative Parcel Map. The original four parcels total 91.08 gross acres. Phase 1 of the Map will contain three parcels. Phases 2 through 5 will contain one parcel respectively. No physical development is proposed as part of the project. The map indicates that proposed land uses for the newly created parcels will remain consistent with the Linfield Christian School Planned Development Overlay (PDO). LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the UT -San Diego on August 7, 2014 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project has been deemed to be consistent with the previously prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the Linfield Christian School PDO. The PDO for Linfield Christian School was submitted on November 12, 2002. This application was accompanied by a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan. Staff reviewed the applications and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was needed in order to satisfy CEQA requirements. The MND for the project was circulated for public review from April 28, 2003 to May 27, 2003 (State Clearing House Number: 2003041174) and was adopted on August 23, 2003. The Phased Tentative Parcel Map will require that all proposed uses and development standards for the new parcels be consistent with the PDO. These uses were evaluated with the G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0348 Linfield School TM\Planning\Hearing\STAFF REPORT.doc 2 rest of the PDO as part of the original MND. In addition, any future construction and uses will be required to adhere to the adopted mitigation measures of the MND. Further environmental review should take place if and when a use is proposed that is not consistent with the PDO. FINDINGS Tentative Map (Section 16.09.0140) The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. The proposed Phasing Map is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Temecula General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. 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. The proposed map does not impact land designated for conservation or agricultural use. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The proposed map subdivides four existing parcels totaling 91.08 gross acres into a Phased Tentative Parcel Map. No development is proposed as part of the project. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map design is consistent with the Temecula General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. 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 project consists of a Phased Tentative Parcel Map. No construction or grading is proposed as part of the project. As conditioned, the subdivision is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed by the Fire, Public Works, Planning, and Building and Safety Departments. As a result, the project is consistent or has been conditioned to be consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code which contain provisions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the Public. Furthermore, all future development will be required to adhere to the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted as part of the original PDO approval process. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The Phased Tentative Parcel Map does not include new construction or grading. GAPLANNING\2010\PA10-0348 Linfield School TM\Planning\Hearing\STAFF REPORT.doc 3 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 alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. All acquired rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the phased Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. The subdivision is consistent with the City's Parkland Dedication requirements (Quimby Act). The project does not involve the construction of any residential uses and is therefore not subject to the City's Parkland Dedication requirements. r_iifTd:tk'ri I:1:1lK Vicinity Map Plan Reductions Resolution Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program Notice of Public Hearing GAPLANNING\2010\PA10-0348 Linfield School TM\Planning\Hearing\STAFF REPORT.doc 4 VICINITY MAP J PA10-0348 1 Ko PLAN REDUCTIONS CENFR.I[ NOTES a_ TEN TA 71 VE PARCEL PRfAAREN: �'�CaBL:dw.N :w %t jV sEcnav a - o" (E6W ..r..-- P,fYWERrY/OIN✓ER/A PGMINL - SECn•Q/N F F J I �'. 0 o- ✓ol�c � \� ��A9kP� ,r ,.,...��m• al UA[/A�NUNRERS <p. w 2WU Z0.YE. 4 36093 PARCEL (2 611 A, / m IN AC ) p,�FJ�UNI• r 36p98,1 PARCEL 2 "I Al (O ) SW AG(Nr) MAP NO. 36098, —1, —2, — — 4, & 36098 /SlAlf ca a' MrEFtrDE. / SIAIF Ol GL/fCNNN j{ t FEBRINAY 10/A ARCEL 1 IW Al ➢A+ eWry L. PAR�FI r:"36pg8�2 ;s PARCEL O1 41 ACC PARCEZ -7 ].V A4 / TT 1 1./A AG J \\\ Nvwr cw,tHrr Pno1- Cd ppJO ,1MENI 01000 O.K 00 115�76�19 �, LO�LIIN`IIiF. �dKOfp ,20, i00 JI ..U• r\, A PARCEL (2) V74AC- b1.41� AO N.A.P.r � '�-/rvw.mn nnwwuiu I ,.PIntl '0 T� b!/I/ E qM o " y.NCEt xf Nb�.rO I vYY tl//tl }WYE vbn YbG 19699 -0 rou. 1, y-,.. I nraro nr:r �wsvmvu r.a�rts ig AFP .ro.L jM RANCHO 1 A� ROAD TYF. /1V7ERNAL 577?EET SECTION -RCLN ROAD e =I LINF/ECD WAY I SECT/O/✓ 9 – B" SWRON C – C" l �— i�j___, wou en NO.PA 10-0348 4lJV �ENdNEER3 I r - SECn•Q/N F F I �'. 0 o- ✓ol�c � \� _I SECn� O Ix.tlt ARCEL 1 IW Al ➢A+ eWry L. PAR�FI r:"36pg8�2 ;s PARCEL O1 41 ACC PARCEZ -7 ].V A4 / TT 1 1./A AG J \\\ Nvwr cw,tHrr Pno1- Cd ppJO ,1MENI 01000 O.K 00 115�76�19 �, LO�LIIN`IIiF. �dKOfp ,20, i00 JI ..U• r\, A PARCEL (2) V74AC- b1.41� AO N.A.P.r � '�-/rvw.mn nnwwuiu I ,.PIntl '0 T� b!/I/ E qM o " y.NCEt xf Nb�.rO I vYY tl//tl }WYE vbn YbG 19699 -0 rou. 1, y-,.. I nraro nr:r �wsvmvu r.a�rts ig AFP .ro.L jM RANCHO 1 A� ROAD TYF. /1V7ERNAL 577?EET SECTION -RCLN ROAD e =I LINF/ECD WAY I SECT/O/✓ 9 – B" SWRON C – C" l �— i�j___, wou en NO.PA 10-0348 4lJV �ENdNEER3 I r RESOLUTION DH RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10-0348, A PHASED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW THE EXISTING LINFIELD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL TO CREATE FIVE MAP PHASES, COMPRISED OF ONE 3 -LOT PHASE AND FOUR 1 -LOT PHASES, RANGING IN SIZE BETWEEN 2.00 AND 62.74 ACRES, LOCATED AT 31950 PAUBA ROAD (APN: 955-020-006, 09, 010) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Director of Community Development of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On December 15, 2010, Karen Raftery, on behalf of Linfield Christian School, filed Planning Application No. PA10-0348 a Tentative Parcel Map Application 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 Director of Community Development, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on August 21, 2014, 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 Director's Hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Director of Community Development approved Planning Application No. PA10-0348 subject to Conditions of Approval, after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA10-0348, conformed to the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. Section 2. Further Findings. The Director of Community Development, in approving Planning Application No. PA10-0348, hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.014. A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Phasing Map is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, Temecula General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. 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; The proposed map does not impact land designated for conservation or agricultural use. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the Tentative Map; The proposed map subdivides four existing parcels totaling 91.08 gross acres into a phased Tentative Parcel Map. No development is proposed as part of the project. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map design is consistent with the Temecula General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. D. 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 project consists of a Phased Tentative Parcel Map. No construction or grading is proposed as part of the project. As conditioned, the subdivision is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; The project has been reviewed by the Fire, Public Works, Planning, and Building and Safety Departments. As a result, the project is consistent or has been conditioned to be consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code which contain provisions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the Public. Furthermore, all future development will be required to adhere to the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted as part of the original PDO approval process. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; The Phased Tentative Parcel Map does not include new construction or grading. G. 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 alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided; All acquired rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the phased Tentative Map. The City has reviewed these easements and has found no potential conflicts. H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's Parkland Dedication requirements (Quimby Act): The project does not involve the construction of any residential uses and is therefore not subject to the City's parkland dedication requirements. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Director of Community Development hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) Section 4. Conditions. The Director of Community Development of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA10-0348, a Phased Tentative Parcel Map to allow the existing Linfield Christian School to create five map phases, comprised of one 3 -lot phase and four 1 -lot phases, ranging size between 2.00 and 62.74 acres, located at 31950 Pauba Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Director of Community Development this 21St day of August, 2014. Armando. G. Villa, AICP Director of Community Development I, Cynthia Lariccia, Secretary of the Temecula Director's Hearing, do hereby certify that the forgoing DH Resolution No. 14- was duly and regularly adopted by the Director of Community Development of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21St day of August, 2014. Cynthia Lariccia, Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA10-0348 Project Description: A Phased Tentative Parcel Map to allow the existing Linfield Christian School to create five map phases, comprised of one 3 - lot phase and four 1 -lot phases, ranging in size between 2.00 and 62.74 acres, located at 31950 Pauba Road Assessor's Parcel No. MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Quimby Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION 955-020-006, 009, 010 N/A (No New Square Footage, Grading) N/A (No New Square Footage) N/A (No New Square Footage) N/A (Non -Residential Project) August 21, 2014 August 21, 2017 Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project PL -1. Filing Notice of Exemption. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for.the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements PL -2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. PL -3. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. PL -4. Expiration. 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 three year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. PL -5. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 5 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. PL -6. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. PL -7. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map PL -8. Final Map. A copy of the Final Map shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division. PL -9. Environmental Constraint Sheet. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Division with the following notes: a. This property is located within 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. b. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was previously prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Division (State Clearing House No. 2003041174. PL -10. Submittal of CC&Rs. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development. The CC&Rs shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings, and all landscaped and open areas, including parkways. PL -11. Form and Content of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. PL -12. Preparation of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. PL -13. Review of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owners Association are subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development, Public Works Director, and the City Attorney. PL -14. CC&Rs and Management and Maintenance of Common Areas. The CC&Rs shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas, drainage facilities, and pollution prevention devices outlined in the project's Water Quality Management Plan. PL -15. CC&Rs and Public Nuisance. The CC&Rs shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated, and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. PL -16. Termination of CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. PL -17. CC&Rs and Maintenance of Propertv. The CC&Rs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&Rs, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&Rs or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. PL -18. Interest in Association. Every owner of a suite or lot governed by CC&Rs shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either: (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. PL -19. Maintenance of Open Areas. All open areas and landscaping governed by CC&Rs shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning Divisions and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. PL -20. Reciprocal Easements. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives, parking areas, drainage facilities, and water quality features, shall be provided by the CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. PL -21. Consent of City of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs to read as follows: Article CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval of Tentative Tract Map Number requires the City to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. _2. Declarant acknowledges that the City has reviewed these CC&Rs and that its review is limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessment procedures, assessment enforcement, resolution of disputes or procedural matters. 3. In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the land use entitlements issued by the City for the Parcel or Federal, State, or local laws, ordinances, and regulations and these CC&Rs, the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and Federal, State or local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding the language of the CC&Rs. _4. These CC&Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise modified without the express written consent of the Director Community Development of the City of Temecula. PL -22. Consent of City of Temecula. An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs, following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows: CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Armando G. Villa Director Community Development Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney PL -23. Operation of Association. No lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owners group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&Rs, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&Rs shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. PL -24. Recordation of CC&Rs. CC&Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Final Map Recordation. PL -25. Copies of CC&Rs. Three copies of the final recorded CC&Rs shall be provided to the Planning Division. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements F-1. Requirements. All previous existing conditions for this project, Specific Plan, or Development Agreement will remain in full force and effect unless superseded by more stringent requirements here. F-2. Life Safety Conditions. 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. F-3. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. 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 Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-4. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" 2 '/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart at each intersection, and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-5. Traffic Calming Devices. All traffic calming devices that could impede or slow emergency vehicle access are prohibited, except those expressly approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau individually on a case by case basis when they maintain the required travel widths and radii. F-6. Construction Phasing. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during all construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field (CFC Chapter 5). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) F-7. Turning Radius (Cul-de-sac). Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be 45 feet (CFC Chapter 5 along with the Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-8. All Weather Access Roads (W/ Hardscape/Landscape). Cul-de-sacs and/or intersections with planters must maintain 24 -foot clear unobstructed travel width around the planters, not including parking. Hardscape areas are permissible provided they meet the 80,000 Ib. GVW load requirements and are at road level. F-9. Access Road Widths (Private Driveway). Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road. F-10. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet for commercial with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-11. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads and driveways shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). F-12. Turning Radius (Dead End Roadway). Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) F-13. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. 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 will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 5 and Chapter 33). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy F-14. Hydrant Markers. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) (per Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020. F-15. Knox Box. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5). PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements PW -1. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. PW -2. Subdivision Map. The developer shall submit a complete Final Map submittal for review and approval. Any omission to the representation of the site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. PW -3. Permit restriction: No permits shall be issued unless future Development Plan applications are submitted for approval. PW -4. Grading Permit. A grading permit for rough and/or precise grading shall be obtained from Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within private property. Grading shall be in accordance with the approved grading plan, grading permit conditions and City codes/standards. PW -5. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained from Public Works for public offsite improvements. PW -6. Improvement Plans. The developer shall submit improvement plans (to include public/private street plans, storm drain plans, signage and striping plans.) as required for review and approval by Public Works. The designs shall be in compliance with Caltrans, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City codes/standards. PW -7. Private Drainage Facilities. All onsite drainage and water quality facilities shall be privately maintained. PW -8. Access restriction: The future access onto Rancho Vista Road from Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 36098-1 and Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 36098-2 shall be restricted to a right-in/right-out movement. Prior to Recordation of the Parcel Map PW -9. Plans, Agreements & Securities. The developer shall have approved improvement plans, executed subdivision improvement agreements and posted securities. PW -10. Right -of -Way Dedications. 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 Public Works. PW -11. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall prepare and record an ECS with the Parcel Map to delineate identified environmental concerns. The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS along with any underlying maps related to the property. PW -12. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; e. Rancho California Water District; f. Eastern Municipal Water District; g. Verizon; h. Telephone Company; i. Southern California Edison Company; j. The Gas Company; and k. Metropolitan Water District or other affected agencies. PW -13. Right of Access. Specific location of access points on Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road shall be determined with future Development Plans. (See General Note No. 6 on the approved Tentative Parcel Map) PW -14. Right of Access. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Green Tree Road on the Parcel Map as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. PW -15. Easements. Note the following: a. Linfield Way, along the parcel boundary for Parcel Map No. 36098-1, a 60 -foot wide private access road easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergency vehicle access, as shown on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. b. Private easements for cross -lot drainage shall be delineated and noted on the Final Map. c. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcel Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. d. Easements (when required for roadway slopes, landscape, drainage facilities, utilities, etc.) shall be shown on the Parcel 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 Public Works. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the Parcel Map. A note shall be added to the Parcel Map stating: "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." PW -16. RCFC&WCD Approval. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to issuance of any permit. PW -17. Public Street Improvements and Securities. The developer shall design and guarantee construction (i.e., posting of security and entering into agreements) of the following public improvements to the City's General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be approved by Public Works. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards to join existing street improvements. a. Parcel Map No. 36098-1 i. Rancho Vista Road, including intersection improvements to Linfield Way, (Secondary Highway Standards -88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Parcel Map No. 36098-2 i. Rancho Vista Road, including intersection improvements to Linfield Way, (Secondary Highway Standards -88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. Parcel Map No. 36098-3 i. Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards- 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). ii. Rancho Vista Road (Secondary Highway Standards -88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). d. Parcel Map No. 36098-4 i. Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards- 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). e. Parcel Map No. 36098 i. Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards- 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). ii. Green Tree Road (Local Road Standard -60' R/W) to include dedication of half - width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street light, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). PW -18. Parkway Landscaping. All parkway landscaping areas shall be privately maintained. PW -19. Undergrounding Utility Systems. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV shall be provided underground (with the required easements); and shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City codes and utility provider's standards. Telephone, cable TV and/or security systems shall be pre -wired in the residence. The developer shall notify the City's cable TV franchisees of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV standards at time of street improvements. PW -20. Acquisition of Offsite Property. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire required offsite property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall, prior to submittal of the Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Subdivision Map Act, Sections 66462 and 66462.5. The agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the offsite 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 developer's cost). The appraiser shall be approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. PW -21. Property Taxes. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid PW -22. Election Proceeding. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the Finance Department to initiate election proceedings for acceptance of street lighting into the appropriate maintenance program (Service Level B). All cost associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. PW -23. Parcel Geometry. The applicant shall submit an editable projected digital version of the parcel geometry in a drawing exchange format (pursuant to Riverside County standards). Prior to final approval, the City's GIS Division shall conduct quality control on the data to verify accuracy and compatibility. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) PW -24. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Army Corps of Engineers; c. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; d. Metropolitan Water District; e. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; or other affected agencies PW -25. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: htti)://www.citvoftemecula.orq/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/engineeringconst manual.htm PW -26. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. PW -27. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml PW -28. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal, based on the conceptual WQMP from the entitlement process. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the final project - specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http://www.cityoftemeculEi.orq/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks[W QMPandNPDE S/WQMP.htm PW -29. Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fee to RCFC&WCD. The developer shall demonstrate to the City that the flood mitigation charge (ADP fee) has been paid to RCFC&WCD. If the full ADP fee has already been credited to this property, no new charge will be required. PW -30. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, 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. PW -31. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. PW -32. Geological Report. The developer shall complete any outstanding County geologist's requirements, recommendations and/or proposed Conditions of Approval as identified during entitlement. PW -33. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. PW -34. Habitat Conservation Fee. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in the ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PW -35. Final Map. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded in sequence, i.e., Parcel Map No. 36098-1 shall record prior to Parcel Map No. 36098-2. Parcel Map No. 36098 shall record last. (See General Note No. 9 on the approved Tentative Parcel Map) PW -36. Offsite Improvements: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each Parcel Map, the following improvement plan shall be submitted for review and approved. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards to join existing street improvements. a. Parcel Map No. 36098-1 i. Rancho Vista Road, including intersection improvements to Linfield Way, (Secondary Highway Standards -88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). ii. Linfield Way to include installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Parcel Map No. 36098-2 i. Rancho Vista Road, including intersection improvements to Linfield Way, (Secondary Highway Standards -88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Linfield Way to include installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. Parcel Map No. 36098-3 i. Rancho Vista Road (Secondary Highway Standards -88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). ii. Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards- 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). iii. Linfield Way to include installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). d. Parcel Map No. 36098-4 i. Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards- 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). e. Parcel Map No. 36098 i. Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards- 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). ii. Green Tree Road (Local Road Standard -60' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street light, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). PW -37. Street Lights. The developer shall submit a completed SCE street light application, an approved SCE Streetlight Plan and pay the advanced energy fees. If not obtaining a building permit, this shall be done prior to installation of additional street lighting. All costs associated with the relocation of any existing street lights shall be paid by the developer. PW -38. Precise Grading Plan. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan; and shall show all lot drainage directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. 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. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy PW -39. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all onsite work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. PW -40. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. PW -41. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. PW -42. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Completion SCH # 2003041174 Project Title: Planning Applications Nos. PA02-0612 a Zone Change/Planned Contact Person: Dan Long Development Overlay and PAO1-0653 is a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan Title: Associate Planner Lead Agency: City of Temecula Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive Phone: (909) 694-6400 City: Temecula, CA Zip; 92590 Project Location Within 2 miles City of Temecula, Riverside County State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 Cross Streets: Located between Rancho Airports: n/a Vista Road and Pauba Road, west of Waterways: n/a Meadows Parkway and approximately Railways: None 1000 feet east of Margarita Road Schools: Paloma Elementary, Sparkman Elementary, Temecula Valley High School, Margarita Middle School. Temecula Elementary School, Vail Elementary Assessor's Parcel No.: 955-002-002 School Total Acres: 94 CEQA Document Type [ ]NOP [X]Negative Declaration [ JSupplement EIR ( ]EIR (Prior SCH #) [ ]Early Consultation [ Draft EIR ]Subsequent EIR [ ]Other Local Action Type [ ]General Plan Update I ]Specific Plan [X]Rezone [ ]Annexation [ ]General Plan Amendment [ ]Master Plan [ ]Prezone [ ]Redevelopment [ ]General Plan Element [ ]Planned Unit Development [XJUse Permits [ ]Coastal Permit [ ]Community, Plan [X]Site Plan/Plot Plan ( ]Subdivision of Land [ ]City Development Project [ Other Development Type ' [X]Residential: Units 26 Acres 9_81 [ ]Water Facilities: Type,_MGD [ ]Office: Sq.ft._ Acres_ Employees_ [ ]Transportation Type [ ]Commercial: Sq.ft_ Acres _ Employees_ [ ]Mining: Mineral [ ]Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ [ ]Power: Type [X]Educational:_yrivate school, athletic fields/facilities [ ]Waste Treatment: Type [ ]Recreational: [ ]Hazardous Waste: Type - [ Other: Planned Development Overlay school athletic facilities with secondary student/facufty housing Project Issues Discussed in Document [ ]Aesthetic/Visual [ ]Flood Plain/Hooding [ ]Schools/Universities [ ] Water Quality [ ]Agricultural Land [ ]Forest Land/Fire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [ ]Water supply/groundwater ( ]Air Quality [ ]GeologictSeismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [X]Wedand/Riparian [X]Archeological/Historical J ]Minerals [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [X]Wildlife [ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing [ ]Drainage/Absorption [ JPopulatiorrlHousing Balances[ ]Toxic[Hazardous [ ]Land Use [ ]Economic/Jobs [ ]Public Services/Facilities [X]Traffic/Circulation [X]Cumulative Effects [ ]Fiscal [ ]Recreation/Parks [ ]Vegetation Other: Light& Glare Present Land Use: Private school and athletic fields Current Zoning: Public Institutional (PI) General Plan Use: Public Institutional (PI) Project Description: PA02-0612 is a Planned Development Overlay (PDO -7) proposal to modify the land use standards to allow for a mix of uses on 93.77 acres including educational, recreational, institutional and residential facilities. RAP D 0\2002t02-0612 tmfickANOTICE OF COMPLMONAd PAOI-0653 is a (Master) Conditional Use Perrmt/Development Plan application. The Master CUP application applies to the overall project and phasing. In addition, the Master CUP establishes design guidelines and provides a "blueprint" for future site layout. The overall proposal includes 120,374 square feet of new high school facilities, 11,243 square feet of new middle school facilities, 9,100 square feet of new elementary school facilities, 19,000 square feet of new kindergarten and pre-school facilities, one new junior varsity baseball field, one new middle school soccer field, one new football/track stadium, 6 new tennis courts, 3 new outdoor ball courts, 10,189 square feet of middle school lockers, courts and student store, 28,114 square foot gymnasium and pool, and 15,000 square feet of various sports and accessory structures. The project also includes a sensitive resource area proposed for preservation. The development plan proposal is for the design of phase A-1 as outlined in the Master CUP document. The Master CUP establishes the overall site into 3 planning areas. Area 1 A is broken down into various phases beginning with phase A -I (High School) to phase F-2 (Superintendent(Caretaker housing). Mail to: Sum C earinttbo . 1400 Tmth SuWt Sanamenm. CA 95814 (9161445-0617 R;T D OUOOP02-0612 tinfielANOTICE OF COMPIEMN.doc REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST Resources Agency B oating/W aterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy _ Colorado River Board T Conservation T Fish and Came Forestry T Office of Historic Preservation Parks and Recreation Reclamation S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission _ Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation, & Housing Aeronautics California Highway Patrol Caltrans District No. 8 Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters) Housing & Community Development _ Other State & Consumer Services General Services OLA (Schools) KEY S=Document sent by lead agency X=Document sent by SCH T=Suggested distribution Environmental Affairs _ Air Resources Board APCDIAQMD _ California Waste Management Board T SWRCB: Clean Water Grants _ SWRCB: Delta Unit T SWRCB: Water Quality _ SWRCB: Water Rights T Regional WQCB # 9 ( ) Youth & Adult Corrections _ Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission T Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Land Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency _ Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting D` April 28, 2003 Ending Date May 27, 2003 Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable): City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Dan Long Phone (909 ) 694-6400 Applicant Linfield Christian School Address 31950 Pauba Road Temecula, CA 92591 Phone (909)676-8111 RAP D O\2002\02-0612 Linfield\NOTICE OF CO.MPlERONAm Date April 23, 2003 Health Services For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: Planning Application No. PA01-0653 Master CUP/Development Plan Planning Application No. PA02-0612 Zoning Amendment for a Planned Development Overlay (PDO -7) DISTRIBUTION DATE: April 28, 2003 CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety ..................................... (X) Fire Department......................................(X) Police Department .................................. ( ) Parks & Recreation (TCSD).................... (X) Planning, Advance .................................. ( ) Public Works ........................................... (X) STATE: Caltrans................................................... (X) Fish& Game ........................................... (X) Mines& Geology ..................................... ( ) Regional Water Quality Control Bd ......... (X) State Clearinghouse ............................... (X) State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) ............ (X) Water Resources .................................... r 1 FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers ........................ (X) Fish and Wildlife Service ......................... (X) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District .............. (X) Western Riverside COG ......................... ( ) CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning.................................................. ( ) RAP D 052002102-0612 Lmfidd\No&c of fnmmdoc 4 CASE PLANNER: Dan Long RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Clerk and Recorder's Office .................... (X) Airport Land Use Commission .................( ) Engineer..................................................( ) Flood Control .......................................... (X) Health Department ................................. (X) Parks and Recreation ..............................( ) Planning Department ...............................( ) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) . (X) Riverside Transit Agency ........................ (X) UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District ............. (X) Inland Valley Cablevision ........................ (X) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve .... (X) Southern California Gas ......................... (X) Southern California Edison ..................... (X) Temecula Valley School District ............. (X) Metropolitan Water District ..................... (X) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ................. (X) Eastern Information Center .................... (X) Local Agency Formation Comm ..............( ) RCTC...................................................... ( ) Homeowners' Association .......................... ( } City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Linfield Christian School Master Plan Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Dan Long,Associate Planner 909 694-6400 Project Location 31950 Pauba Road. Located between Pauba Road and Rancho Vista Road, east of Margarita Road and west of Meadows Parkway Assessors Parcel No. 955-002-002 Project Sponsor's Name and Address Linfield Christian School, 31950 Pauba Road, Temecula, CA 92592 General Plan Designation Public Institutional PI Zoning Public Institutional PI Description of Project PA02-0612 is a Planned Development Overlay (PDO -7) proposal to modify the land use standards to allow for a mix of uses on 93.77 acres including educational, recreational, institutional and residential facilities. PA01-0653 is a (Master) Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan application. The Master CUP application applies to the overall project and phasing. In addition, the Master CUP establishes design guidelines and provides a "blueprint" for future site layout. The overall proposal includes 120,374 square feet of new high school facilities, 11,243 square feet of new middle school facilities, 9,100 square feet of new elementary school facilities, 19,000 square feet of new kindergarten and pre-school facilities, one new junior varsity baseball field. one new middle school soccer field, one new football/track stadium, 6 new tennis courts, 3 new outdoor ball courts, 10,189 square feet of middle school lockers, courts and student store, 28,114 square foot gymnasium and pool, and 15,000 square feet of various sports and accessory structures. The project also includes a sensitive resource area proposed for preservation. The development plan proposal is for the design of phase A-1 as outlined in the Master CUP document. The Master CUP establishes the overall site into 3 planning areas. Area 1A is broken down into various phases beginning with phase A-1 (High School) to phase F-2 (Superintendent/Caretaker housing). Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North: Low -Medium Density Residential (single-family residences) East: Very Low Density Residential (single-family residences & vacant lots) South: Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan/Low Medium Residential (single-family residences/Paloma Elementary School) West: Public Institutional (Temecula Valley High School) Other public agencies whose approval California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, is required United States Fish and Wildlife Service, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board RAP 0 0\2002\02-0612 Llrrtieldlinitial study -talo RAP D 0\2002\02-0612 Un/ielcNnitiW study-t-Revised.dw 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 Mineral Resources Agricultural Resources Population and Housing X Noise Air Quality Population and Housing X Biological Resources, Water Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geologic Problems X Trans ortationffraffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a 'potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a 'potentially significant impact" or'potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the ro osed project, nothing further is required. Signature Dan Lona. Associate Planner Printed name RT D Ot2002ID2-0812 UnfietdtirtitW study-1-Revised.dw April 24, 2003 Date City of Temecula For 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional Less Than Less Than Potentially s gnnc�m With Less Than Potentially Significantwith S MitlgaEo Significant No Issues and Su ce Information Sours Impc t act t Impact I in a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and within a state scenic highway? Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or to non-agricultural use? X quality of the site and its surroundings? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which area? X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion Comments: 1.a. No Impact. The existing property has not been identified as a scenic vista in the City of Temecula's General Plan. 1.b. No Impact. Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road are not designated as scenic resources nor is the site within the view of a state scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed project or future development of the site. I.C. No Impact. The general character of the site will be maintained through site design and by maintaining an abundance of the existing landscaping and mature trees. Additional trees and landscaping have been proposed to maintain the rural character and blend with the existing site. The design of the site has been proposed which maintains the rural components of the site, including landscaping, on-site pond, open space and athletic fields. 1.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will introduce new lighting in the area that could impact adjacent residences and Mount Palomar observatory unless mitigated. Conditions of approval have been implemented which require the athletic field lighting to have limited hours of operation (10:00 PM) and all security and parking lot lighting will be conditioned to comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. 2. Agricultural 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significantwith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues am St,poorbng Information Sources Imp= frnorponated Impac Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X 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-agricultural use? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? RAP 0 0\2002\02-0612 LinfieliAnitial study-1-Revised.doc Comments: 2a. -c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. 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 Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existing or projected air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Comments: 3.a, No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with the air quality plan. The land use and proposed density are consistent with the City's general plan air quality element because the use is consistent with the general plan land use designation and the 26 residential units proposed are considered secondary to the primary use because the residential units are proposed only for students and/or faculty of the school. 3.b. c. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigations_ The project will not create an unreasonable amount of vehicle trips per day than already existing for the site and will not produce additional air pollution than currently existing for the site because the site will continue to be primarily used as a school facility with secondary residential uses. The project is not identified as a major source of air pollution. Temporary impacts due to construction of the site may be expected, however the impacts are not considered significant and conditions of approval have been incorporated that will mitigate these temporary impacts. 3.d. Less Than Significant Impact. As proposed the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrators. The proposed project will fall below the significance levels established by SCAQMD for construction and operational emissions. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e. No Impact. Typical construction odors may be present during construction activities, however these impacts are considered temporary and will not contribute significant long-term impacts. No other objectionable odors are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. RAP D 012002\02-0512 Unfietdlinitial study-1-Revised.doc REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASUREICONDITION OF APPROVAL The project will be required to provide a water truck to continuously "water down" the graded areas to reduce the amount of dust from excavation. During grading activities, site shall be watered down no less than three times per day in order to comply with AQMD Rule 403 -Fugitive Dust. In addition, all heavy equipment must be regularly maintained to reduce emissions. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Len Than Potentially SigNeCan1 With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supportng Information Sources Impact Inco waled Im ao Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X 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 on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? Comments 4.a. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site, however a current biological survey of the site (A General Biological Resources Survey and Jurisdictional Delineation on APN # 955-002-002, The Linfield School Project, L & L Environmental, Inc., August, 2001) has identified the project site as potentially environmentally sensitive habitat areas for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB), southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo. In addition a follow-up focused raptor survey was recommended. A follow-up study has been completed for the QBC (Focused Survey For The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly on APN # 955-002-002, The Linfield School, L & L Environmental, Inc., June 2002), however the results indicated that it is unlikely that QBC individuals or a QBC breeding population currently utilize the subject property. In a follow up letter from L & L Environmental, Inc., dated February 19, 2003, it was determined that further studies are not necessary for least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher since the area determined to provide habitat for these species lies RAP 0 012002\02-0612 Linfid6nitial study-l-Revised.dm within a resource area to be preserved. A follow-up focused raptor survey has been complete (Results of a focused raptor nesting survey for APN # 955-002-002, The Linfield Project, L & L Environmental, Inc., March 21, 2002) and has determined that while a single raptor nest was observed on the project it was determined to be abandoned or currently unoccupied. The report recommends a follow-up site visit is necessary to determine if the nest has become occupied. As a mitigation measure and condition of approval, the applicant, prior to issuance of a grading permit shall perform a follow-up site visit by a qualified biologist to determine if the nest has become occupied by a raptor. In addition, the riparian trees and riparian habitat and associated drainages are regulated under state and federal permits which are required for this project. The biological survey (August 2001) submitted for the project as mentioned above has identified on-site wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act and the necessary permits are required prior to commencement of various construction on the project site. The necessary studies have been completed for the project site, as well as focused follow-up studies and have determined that no significant impacts will occur as a result of the proposed development. Mitigation Measures have been applied. At the request of the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, the applicant has prepared a focused Survey for the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Focused survey for the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher on the Linfield Christian School, L & L Environmental, Inc., August 2003), and an ongoing focused survey for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Status of the Ongoing Focused survey report for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher on the Linfield Christian School, L & L Environmental, Inc., July 31, 2003), which is anticipated for completion in October of 2003. The U.S. Department of Fish and Game authorized compressed scheduling for the U.S.F.W.S. protocol studies to include eight surveys, five days apart for Least Bell's Vireo. Also approved by the U.S.F.W.S. was an amended protocol survey for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, which included missing survey period one and conducting a fifth site visit July 17 — July 25. The focused survey for Least Bells Vireo and Southwestern Flycatcher were conducted within areas of suitable habitat during the months of June to July of 2003. During this time no Least Bell's Vireos or Southwestern Willow Flycatchers were observed or detected. The study concluded that neither of theses species do not currently occupy the project site. No further studies or mitigations have been proposed or recommended for these particular species. The particular area of concern in regard to the Coastal California Gnatcatcher is the southwestern portion of the project site, which includes Planning Area 2 of the Master Plan. This area is not proposed for development at this time, but is included in the Master Plan as a residential area for future development. The area in question will require a subsequent development plan application prior to any disturbance to this area. The applicant is in the process of completing the required Coastal California Gnatcatcher studies for this particular area. However, four of the required nine surveys have been complete. During the course of the four completed surveys, no Coastal California Gnatcatchers have been observed or detected on the project site. As a Condition of Approval and Mitigation Measure, the applicant will complete the nine surveys for the project site and submit a summary report with conclusions and recommended mitigation measures it necessary. Upon the request for development in the area, the Coastal California Gnatcatcher study will be complete and mitigations measures and Conditions of Approval will be implemented. Mitigation Measures have been applied. 4.b. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project site contains a mixed riparian habitat within the project site that falls within the state jurisdictional area. A significant amount of the mixed riparian area will be preserved as a result of the proposed project or it is in a currently developed area, but will be maintained as an open space area. As a part of the proposed project, a resource area has been set aside for preservation on the project site. This area will remain undeveloped and is designated as a sensitive resource area. Mitigation Measures have been applied. 4.c. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project site contains wetland areas on the project site. There are a total of 2.85 acres of streambeds or wetlands per the definition of the State criteria for judicial streambeds and .57 acres that meet the federal criteria for Waters of the United RAP D 012002\02-0612 Unfieldlinitial study-l-Revised.doc States. Approximately 1.09 acres of state streambeds, 1.81 acres of state wetlands and .83 acres of federal wetlands will be impacted by the project as currently proposed. The remaining wetland and streambed acreage will be maintained as open space and will be identified as such on the master plan. Mitigation Measures have been applied. 4.d. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site includes riparian woodlands, streambeds and wetlands. The study (A General Biological Resources Survey and Jurisdictional Delineation on APN #'955-002-002, The Linfield School Project, L & L Environmental, Inc., August, 2001) identified three fish species of special status, however no habitat occurs on the site for any fish species. No special status mammals were noted during the biological survey. The project site does not contain a significant open grassland area, habitat for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, listed as Threatened, Endangered or a candidate for listing. The project site is, however, within the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan for this species. Seventeen bird species were observed on the project site, including several special status raptors. A follow-up study has been complete and found a single raptor nest was identified, however it was either abandoned or unoccupied at the time the study was performed. Additionally, the study area includes riparian habitat and drainages that are regulated under state and federal jurisdiction. State and Federal permits are required for this project. Two amphibian species (western toad and pacific tree frog) were observed on the project site. No reptiles were observed on the project site, however no species known to be Endangered, Threatened or on a candidate list are expected to be found on the site. Habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly is very poor. A focused study was complete and found that while the site does support Quino checkerspot larval host plant resources, no adult, ova, larvae or pupae were detected during the six week study and it is unlikely that Quino checkerspot butterfly individuals or a breeding population currently utilize the project site. Since no Endangered, Threatened or species on the candidate list were observed on the project site, the impacts are less than significant, however Mitigation Measures have been applied for areas under state and federal jurisdiction. 4.0. No Impact. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. This will serve as suitable impact mitigation. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The project is required to apply for and obtain the necessary state and federal permits, including a section 401 permit, 1603 streambed alteration agreement, and a Corps Nationwide 39 permit as recommended in the Biological resource survey by L & L Environmental Inc. (August, 2001, August 24, 2001, March 2002, and June 2002). 2. The project has established a resource area that will be preserved and will not be developed. The resource area shall remain in its current state unless development is proposed in the resource area, which will be subject to additional environmental review and a public hearing. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a follow-up site visit from a qualified biologist shall be conducted to determine if the raptor nest has been occupied. A report with recommendations shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 4. The proper habitat conservation and Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. All Coastal Sage Scrub habitat on the site including the patch in the southwest corner, between the riparian corridor and the road as well as the approximately .05 acres of hillside/top habitat in the northwest portion of the project site shall be avoided. In addition, a 150 -foot buffer between the habitat areas and any proposed development shall also be avoided. In the event that the proponent submits a grading plan application for development or grading in either of the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat areas, the proponent shall also submit to the City and the U.S.F.W.S, a completed focused, full protocol study, either nesting or non -nesting season with negative finding and a conclusion by RAP D 012002\02-0612 UnfieldvniUal study-t-Revised.doc the U.S.F.W.S. permitted biologist that the species will not be negatively impacted by the proposed development plan and/or grading plan. In the event that the site is found to be occupied and a survey with positive findings is produced, no work within the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or the 150 - foot buffer area shall occur until a formal consultation with the U.S.F.W.S. has occurred and a permit for incidental take has been issued. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially significant With Less Than Signticant Mitigation Significant No Issues ano supporting Iniormation sources Wnpact Incori>orated Impad Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5.a. Less than Significant Impact With Mitigations Incorporated. The subject site does not meet the criteria of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. In addition the City of Temecula General Plan and associated EIR does not identify the site as a historical resource area. The General Plan has identified the project site as a highly sensitive site for paleontological resource area. An archaeological and paleontological survey (A Phase I Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report on the Linfield Christian School Expansion Site, APN # 955-002- 002, L & L Environmental, Inc., February 11, 2003) has been complete for the project site. The results of the records search indicated that there are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the subject parcel. The report did recognize that an important lithologic deposit underlies the ground surface area of the project site and has the potential for yielding scientifically significant specimens. Mitigations have been recommended including paleontological and archaeological monitoring during all earthmoving activities of the site. 5.b -d. Less Than Significant Impact A phase I archaeological and paleontological study (A Phase I Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report on the Linfield Christian School Expansion Site, APN # 955-002-002, L & L Environmental, Inc., February 11, 2003) was completed for the project site. According to the study, while there were no materials identified during the field survey, the study concluded there is a low probability that prehistoric or historic resources will be impacted by continued development of the project site. Additionally, neither the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report nor the City's General Plan identifies this project site as an area of significant cultural resources. The project will include conditions of approval to provide a paleontologist and an archaeologist or representative monitor present during all earthmoving phases with the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall comply with all the mitigations measures as recommended in the phase I archaeological and paleontological survey, prepared by L & L Environmental, Inc., dated February 11, 2003. 2. The applicant shall provide an on-site archaeological and paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities as recommended in the Phase I archaeological report by L & L Environmental, Inc. (February 2003). R:tP D 012002W2-0612 LinfieMnitiat study-l-Revised.doc 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into an agreement with the Pechanga Band that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources and human resources and human remains discovered on-site. 4. Prior to the completion of the project a phase II, and if warranted a phase III survey shall be performed. 5. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. 6. All sacred sites within the project area are to be avoided and preserved. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Less Than PoMnfially Significant With Less Than Signdcant "tgation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fauft? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to Irfe or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments 6.a. Less Than Significant Impact. . The project site is not within any known fault zones as recognized in the City of Temecula General Plan. The nearest known fault to the project site is the Wildomar Fault zone, and is located approximately 1-2 miles to the west. According to the General Plan EIR (GPEIR), the City of Temecula is in Ground shaking Zone ll, which will experience moderate to intense ground shaking in the event of a major regional earthquake. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, which is consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, the project will be conditioned to provide a soils report prior to grading and recommendations contained in said report are followed during construction. 6.b. No Impact. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. RAP D o12002102-0612 Linfieldunittal study- 1•Ravised.cloc 10 6.c.d.e. No Impact. Potential impacts will be mitigated by the building construction, which requires new construction to comply with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development and shall contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of proper compaction of the soils and landscaping. 6.d. Less Than Significant Impact. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are complied with during construction. The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. 6.e. No Impact. Additional septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be connected to the existing public sewer system in Pauba Road; therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Sigmficam Wim Less Than Significant Mitigabon SignMunl No Issues and Suppprfing Information Sources Impact I ted Impact MPW a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled 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, X 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 working in the project area? I. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of toss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where RAP D 01200Zi02-0612 Unfiei&nitial study -1 •Revised.doc 11 residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments 7.a Less Than Significant Impact. The project may include some remedial hazardous materials on the project site such as lead based paints, fertilizers, pesticides or other typical agricultural and/or maintenance materials on the project site. Since the site is predominately undisturbed, the impacts are less than significant, however a mitigation measure is added to comply with California environmental regulations. 7.b -h No Impact The project will not create a significant impact in the creation of any health hazard, potential health hazard, risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances and it is not located near, nor is it a site on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project site has not included historic or current uses that result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances that are considered potentially significant in causing harm. The project site is not known to maintain any potentially contaminated material that would pose a threat to human health or the environment. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. The project will not create a fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. While there are existing trees and brush on the site, the site is not considered a wild land area subject to significant risk of loss due to fire. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with all applicable laws. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Any hazardous wastes/materials encountered during construction shall be remediated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Prior to any initiating any construction activities, an environmental assessment shall be conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists on the project site. Proper investigation and remedial actions shall be conducted at the site prior to its new development. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Less Than Potentla ly sign&am with Less Than Sigrnfuam Mitlgation Signilirant No Issues ano Supporting Intonation Sounas Impact Incorporetetl Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X RAP D 0\2002\02-0612 Linfieldtinitial study-1-ReAsed.doc 12 RAP D OVW2\02-0612 Un6elOnitlel study-l-ReAsed.doc 13 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 that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality? X RAP D OVW2\02-0612 Un6elOnitlel study-l-ReAsed.doc 13 g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 8.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project is required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 8.c.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, however it would not result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Much of the proposed project will maintain its permeable surface, such as athletic fields and open space. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of structures, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances are required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. As conditioned, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the existing facilities. 8.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the development of the subject site. In addition, the project is conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project. 8.g. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for a public institutional use within an area zoned for public institutional uses. Some residential uses are permitted uses and may be developed in the future, however the project site is not located within a flood plain or an area prone to flooding as identified on the FEMA maps. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.h. No Impact The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100 -year floodway as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Figure 7-3) and the Flood Insurance Rate Map Community -Panel Number 06074200058 and 0607420010B. No potential for exposure to RAP D 012002\02-0612 Unfielddnibal study- 1-Revised.doc 14 significant flood hazards will occur from developing the project site as proposed. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. S.i.j. No Impact The project site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Less Than Potentially SlgiMicant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imes and Supporting Inftwnation Swnm Impact tr=rpwated Impact ct a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or X 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 X natural community conservation Ian? Comments 9.a. No Impact The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The property to the west is a public high school, which provides many of the same amenities as the proposed project. On the south and north side of the street are single-family residences. To the east of the project site are low-density residences with various vacant lots. The development of this site, as proposed, will be consistent with the intended use of the property and compatible with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. . Less Than Significant Impact The project will not conflict with the General Plan designation, environmental plans or policies adopted be agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project includes a zone change to PDO -7, which allows for flexibility in the uses permitted. The primary use of the area will remain institutional, as a private school and administrative offices. The associated uses permitted within the PDO are secondary uses to the primary institutional uses and/or they are as allowed under the public institutional zoning and general plan designation. Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. A subsequent traffic study has been prepared by the applicant to address the potential impacts from the residential area proposed by the applicant. Implementation of PDO -7 and the development of Linfield Christian School do not appear to have the potential to conflict with any agency plans or policies that have been adopted in order to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved for the EIR, such as development impact fees, will be applied to this project where necessary. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on this project, and is anticipated the appropriate comments will be received as to how this project relates to their specific environmental plans and/or policies. Significant portions of the project site have been previously disturbed and used for educational and recreational purposes and services are currently in place for the proposed project. With the mitigation measures in place there will be less than significant impacts on adopted environmental plans or policies 9.c. No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The site is not within any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. RAP D 012002102-0612 Linfiel6nitial study -1 -Rev sed.doc 15 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Lest/ Than Potentially Sgndicaln With Lew Than sigmticant Mitigation sgMicara No Issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Lnoogwated Unpacl Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important X b. mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan or other land use Ian? Comments: t O.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula a 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, it has been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in a report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11. NOISE. Would the project result In: Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting trdormabon Sources knoao I ted impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X roundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? C, A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: 11.a Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures. The proposed project is located on an approximately 94 -acre (Minus 23 -acre land lease area) site directly adjacent to single-family residences and an existing public high school. The City of Temecula's General Plan has identified residents as sensitive receptors. A 65 CNEL has been adopted as the maximum exterior noise level RAP 0 0\2002\02-0612 Linfield\initial study-l-Ravised.doc 16 acceptable for sensitive receptors. The CNEL is an average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. The proposed site and residences are separated by a 90 to 95 foot right-of-way, including a street, a 20 foot landscape slope on the residential side and a 20 foot setback on the PDO -7 side, grade elevations varying from 1 -foot to greater than 35 feet and a combination of solid and wrought iron fencing. Noise levels as measured from an adjacent similar facility (Temecula Valley High School, 59.3 measured and 61.2 adjusted) do not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) as noted for the existing residential homes and as adopted in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The addition of a new ball field should not increase the noise dba above the maximum 65 dba allowed since sporting events are not expected to occur beyond 10:00 PM. Other athletic courts and fields are proposed, however they are no less than 180 feet from the right-of-way and are separated by slopes and riparian and woodland area to be maintained. The following mitigation measures will be implemented. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES 1. All outdoor events and public gatherings must cease from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. , 11.b. Less Than Significant Impact The uses proposed by the project are not activities that would expose persons to, or generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. Although there will be an increase in ground -borne vibration and noise during grading and construction, these will be of a temporary and short in duration. Due to the limited nature of this exposure and by maintaining compliance with the City Noise Ordinance there will be a less than significant impacts. 11.c.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction and thereafter. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, the project will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of construction activity from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 P.M. Monday through Friday and 7:00 A.M. to 3:60 P.M. on Saturdays. Construction will not be permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. A less than significant impact is anticipated at this time. ti.e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, student, teachers and other persons within the area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Less Than Potendatly Significant wo Less Than Significant Mitigation sgruacara No Issues arid SLOPorbM Information Sources Impact ncpmorated InVac Imp= a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X 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, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: 12.a.b.c. No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project site is the expansion of an existing educational facility surrounded by single-family residences RAP 0 0\2002\02-0612 Unfieldlini[ial study-l-Revised.doc 17 and other public schools. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is developed within a public institutional zone. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Government services in any of the following areas: Less Than Less Than Potentially Potentially Signi6cand With Less Than Significant Significant Mdgation sGoicard No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact incorporated impact Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X X impacts associates with the provision of new or physically neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the altered governmental facilities, the construction of which facility would occur or be accelerated? could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: b. Fireprotection? X C. Policeprotection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public facilities? X Comments: 13.a.b.c.e. Less Than Significant Impact The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provide public facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 13.d. No Impact The project will not have an impact upon, or will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. No impacts are anticipated. 13.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: Less Than Potentially SignificaM W rM Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No tssues and SLipporting InWrnaton Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? RAP D 0\2002\02-0612 Lin ielWnitial study-1-Revisad.doc 18 b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require Less Trm X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities Sigmficant Mdh Less Than Significant which might have an adverse physical effect on the Soficam No Issues aM SupporfirV himmahon Sources Impact ImorpomW environment? IMPW a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in Comments: 14.a. No Impact. The project is an educational project with open space and athletic facilities. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.b. No Impact. The project includes the potential to include a maximum of 26 residential units in addition to the two existing units which will be replaced and relocated on-site. All residential units are intended to'provide housing for students and/or employees of the school. Since these residential units are secondary uses to the school and there is not a substantial number of residential units proposed, no impacts are anticipated for recreational facilities. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Trm Potentially Sigmficant Mdh Less Than Significant Milwjw Soficam No Issues aM SupporfirV himmahon Sources Impact ImorpomW MPW IMPW a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? G. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X I. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting aftemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments 15.a -c. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigations Incorporated. The project site is currently zoned Public Institutional, which is also the land use assumed in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the traffic -engineering firm Linscott Law & Greenspan, the proposed project will decrease the level of service (LOS) for AM/PM peak hour traffic from D to E. However, the required mitigation measures should improve the LOS to D once the mitigation measures are constructed. With mitigation measures in place, the project is consistent with General Plan goals and polices of maintaining a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections within the City during peak hours. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to the RAP D 02002102-0612 Unfielcivnfial study-l-Revised.doc 19 existing traffic system within the City of Temecula. Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the cumulative impacts during the approval process and has determined that the project's traffic impacts warrant no further study or mitigations beyond those recommended by the traffic analysis. The following Mitigation Measures will be implemented: Mitigation Measures: 1. Restripe the southbound approach of Margarita Road to provide an additional southbound left turn lane (dual southbound left turn lanes) at the intersection of Pauba Road and Margarita Road. 2. Provide a traffic signal at the realigned intersection of Via Rami/Linfield Way @ Pauba Road. 3. Improve Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements 720' west of Linfield Way to the West Boundary, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 4. Improve Rancho Vista Road (Secondary Highway Standards — 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements along the North Boundary frontage, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 5. Improve Green Tree Road (Local Road Standards — 60' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of haft -width street improvement from Margarita Road to the North Boundary, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street light, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)., 6. Future traffic studies may be required to determine the precise timing of each Mitigation Measure if the City determines it is necessary. 7. A school zone and striping plan, per Caltrans standards, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and included in the street improvements for this project. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met, shall be installed by developer. 8. Payment of the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). 15.d -g. No Impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district. The design of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the people utilizing the roads in the vicinity of the project because there are no sharp curves or dangerous intersections proposed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.e. No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.f. No Impact. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking requirements for public institutional uses. Many of the uses, such as athletic fields will only be used during off-peak hours and therefore shared parking will be utilized. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.g. No Impact The proposed project does not propose to provide public transportation or a public transportation turnout. Since the proposed project is a private school, it is not anticipated that a significant need for public transportation will occur. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Because the project does not propose to significantly increase its employee base, alternative transportation programs specifically designed for this project are not necessary. The project will be required to provide bicycle racks at a rate of 1 rack per 20 required parking space per the Development Code. RAP D 0\2002102-0612 Unfieldlinitial study-l-Revised.doc 20 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Le Tr= Potendally Signikantwith Less Than significant Mitigation Sigificarn No Issues and supponing Intonation Sounxs Impact I W a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X 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 X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X 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 X accommodate theproject's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16.a.b.e. Less Than Significant Impact The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. Less Than Significant Impact The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The project will require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground storm drains and drainage swales in various location within the project site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities are required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has reviewed the proposed plan and has determined that the proposed project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.d. Less Than Significant Impact The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District has provided "water available' letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed project, provided the applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regards to use and policies. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f.g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. 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. RAP D 0!2002102-0612 Linfield initial study-t-ReAsed.doc 21 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than significant Mitigation sigrsficarn No Issues and Supporfing SupportingInformation Sources impact lmotporaLed imow hn act a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects? c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments 17.a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. . The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The site includes natural drainage courses and areas identified as riparian woodland. Environmental studies have been completed and have identified an area to be set aside a resource area. The developer is required to obtain various State and Federal Permits including, a Section 1602 permit from the Department of Fish and Game, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers and clearance from the Department of Fish and Wildlife for various biological concerns on the project site. A cultural resources monitor is required to be present on the project site during all earthmoving activities. A traffic analysis has complete and was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify traffic calming devices and mitigation measures to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan. 17.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The individual effects from the project are less than significant with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The project will not have a cumulative effect on the environment since the project site is an isolated area, surrounded by development. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17.c. No Impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The institutional facility will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, PDO, and the General Plan. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 15083(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. R:tP D 012002\02-0612 LinfieldUnitial study-l-Revised.dm 22 b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Comments: 18.a. There were no earlier analyses specifically related to this project site. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report and a number of special studies (listed under Sources) were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study 18.b. There were no earlier impacts, which affected this project. 18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Initial Study. RAP D 0\200202-0812 Unfieldlinitial study-l-Revised.doc 23 SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted July 2, 1993 3. Linfield Christian School Master Plan and Design Guidelines, dated February 21, 2003 4. Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulic Study of Linfield Christian School, Kenneth W. Crawford, Jr. dated December 12, 2001. 5. Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Linfield Christian School Master Plan, Linscott Law & Greenspan, dated December 7, 2001 6. Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum, Linfield Christian School Master Plan, Linscott Law & Greenspan, dated February 5, 2003 7. A General Biological Resources Survey And Jurisdictional Delineation on APN #955-002-002, The Linfield School Project, L & L Environmental, Inc., dated August, 2001 8. Results of A Focused Raptor Nesting Survey For APN # 955-002-002, L & L Environmental, Inc., The Linfield School Project, dated March 21, 2002. 9. Focused Survey For The Quino Checkerspot Butterfly ON APN # 955-002-002, The Linfield School, L & L Environmental, Inc., dated June, 2002. 10. A Phase I Archaeological And Paleontological Survey Report on The Linfield Christian School Expansion Site, APN # 955-002-002, L & L Environmental, Inc., dated February 11, 2003 11. Focused Survey Report for the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher on the Linfield Christian School, L & L Environmental, Inc., dated August 2003. 12. Status of Ongoing Focused Survey Report for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher on the Linfield Christian School, L & L Environmental, Inc., July 31 2003. RAP D 0\2002\02-0612 Linfiemnww study-1-Revised.doc 24 Mitigation Monitoring Program Project Description: Planning Application PA01-0653 Master CUP Planning Application PA02-0612 Planned Development Overlay Location: South side of Rancho Vista Road, north of Pauba Road, east of Margarita Road and west of Meadows Parkway, 31950 Pauba Road, (APN: 955-002-002). Applicant: Linfield Christian School 31950 Pauba Road Temecula, CA 92515 Air Quality General Impact: A temporary impact of offensive odors and additional dust due to the operation of heavy equipment during construction phases of the project. Mitigation Measures: The project is required to provide a water truck to continuously "water down" the graded areas to reduce the amount of dust from excavation. During grading activities, site shall be watered down no less than three times per day in order to comply with AQMD Rule 403 -Fugitive Dust. In addition, all heavy equipment must be regularly maintained to reduce emissions. Specific Process: Planning staff will verity compliance with the above mitigation measure as part of on-going field verification and inspections. Mitigation Milestone: On-going during all grading activities Responsible Monitoring Party: Building Department Biological Resources General Impact: Development of land that potentially supports habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and California Gnatcatcher and raptors. Mitigation Measures: The project will be required to acquire the necessary permits from federal and state agencies including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. RAP D 012002\02-0612 Un ietdWhfgation Monitoring Program.dw 1 Specific Process: Planning and Public Works staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Parry: Planning Department and Public Works Department Biological Resources General Impact: Development of land containing riparian woodlands Mitigation Measures: An environmental resource area has been set aside for preservation and will not developed. Specific Process: As a part of the Master CUP, the plan designates the sensitive riparian woodland as a resource area not to be developed. Mitigation Milestone: Upon approval of the Master CUP and PDO Responsible Monitoring Party Planning Department Biological Resources General Impact: Development of land containing wetlands as identified by state and federal regulations Mitigation Measures: The project will be required to acquire the necessary permits from federal and state agencies including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Specific Process: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the building plan check and grading permit review process. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party Planning Department and Public Works Department RAP D 0\2002\02-0612 UnfiefdWitigatim Monitoring Program.dm 2 Biological Resources General Impact: Development of land that potentially supports habitat for the Least Bell's Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and California Gnatcatcher. Mitigation Measures: All Coastal Sage Scrub habitat on the site including the patch in the southwest corner, between the riparian corridor and the road as well as the approximately .05 acres of hillside/top habitat in the northwest portion of the project site shall be avoided. In addition, a 150 -foot buffer between the habitat areas and any proposed development shall also be avoided. In the event that the proponent submits a grading plan application for development or grading in either of the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat areas, the proponent shall also submit to the City and the U.S.F.W.S. a completed focused, full protocol study, either nesting or non - nesting season with negative finding and a conclusion by the U.S.F.W.S. permitted biologist that the species will not be negatively impacted by the proposed development plan and/or grading plan. In the event that the site is found to be occupied and a survey with positive findings is produced, no work within the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or the 150400t buffer area shall occur until a formal consultation with the U.S.F.W.S. has occurred and a permit for incidental take has been issued. Specific Process: Planning and Public Works staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measure prior to the issuance of a grading permit within the areas mentioned above. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of grading permit for grading the habitat area. Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department and Public Works Department Hazardous Materials General Impact: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials Mitigation Measures: Any hazardous wastes/materials encountered during construction shall be remediated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Prior to any initiating any construction activities, an environmental assessment shall be conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists on the project site. R:T D 0\2 0 02162-0 61 2 UnfieldlMitigation Monitoring Program.doc 3 Proper investigation and remedial actions shall be conducted at the site prior to its new development. Specific Process: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures as part of the building plan check and grading permit review process. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Party Planning Department Noise General Impact: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Mitigation Measures: All outdoor events and public gatherings must be complete prior to 10:00 P.M. Specific Process: Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation measures via Code Enforcement. Mitigation Milestone: Ongoing Responsible Monitoring Party Planning Department Cultural Resources General Impact: Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures: A qualified archaeologist shall develop a mitigation plan and a discovery clausettreatment plan, which includes mitigation monitoring to be implemented during all earthmoving phases of the project. Specific Process: The Planning Department and Building Department, in conjunction with the Luiseno Band will ensure monitors are provided during all earthmoving phases of the project. Mitigation Milestone: On-going during all earthmoving phases of the project Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department, Building Department, and Luiseno Band RAP D 012002\02-0612 Un(ieldWRlgation Monitoring Program.doc 4 Cultural Resources General Impact: Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures: A qualified archaeologist retained by the developer and approved by the City of Temecula shall review the approved project. The archaeologist shall conduct a pre -construction work recommendation plan and participate in a pre -construction meeting with the development staff and construction operators to ensure an understanding of the mitigation measures requires during construction. Specific Process: The Developer will retain a monitor(s) and conduct the required meetings with the Building Division and the Luiseno Band to ensure a plan is developed and an understanding is reached for monitoring. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department, Building Department, and Luiseno Band Cultural Resources General Impact: Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures: A final report must be prepared by the archaeologist for submission to the project proponent, the Eastern information Center and the City of Temecula. The report must describe the parcel history, summarize field and laboratory methods used, and include any testing or special analysis information conducted to support findings. Specific Process: The developer is responsible for acquiring an archaeologist to prepare a final report and submit the findings to the appropriate agencies. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to project completion Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department RAP D 012WM2-0612 UnfieldWitigation Monitoring Program.doc 5 Cultural Resources General Impact Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures: A qualified vertebrate paleontologist retained by the developer and approved by the City of Temecula will develop a storage agreement with the LACM Vertebrae Paleontology Section, San Bernardino County Museum, or another acceptable museum repository to allow for the permanent storage and maintenance of any fossil remains recovered in the project area as a result of the monitoring program, and for the archiving of associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data at the museum repository. Specific Process: The developer is responsible for retaining the required personnel and providing an agreement document to the City of Temecula for review. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department Cultural Resources General Impact Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures: The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist and develop a mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan that when implemented during earthmoving activities will allow for the recovery and subsequent treatment of any fossil remains and associated specimen and site data uncovered by these activities. Specific Process: The developer is responsible for acquiring a paleontologist to prepare a mitigation plan and submit to the City of Temecula for review Mitigation Milestone: Prior to issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department RIP D 0\2002\02-0612 Unffeld\Mitigation Monitoring Progratn.doc 6 Cultural Resources General Impact: Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures: The qualified paleontologist and/or a paleontologist construction monitor (both are required it a separate monitor will be provided) will attend a pre -construction meeting to explain the monitoring program to grading contractor staff and to develop procedures and lines of communication to be implemented if fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving activities, particularly when or if a monitor may not be on-site. Specific Process: The developer is responsible for acquiring a paleontologist and/or paleontologist monitor and schedule a pre -construction meeting along with City of Temecula staff. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department and Building Department Cultural Resources General Impact: Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures: Paleontologic monitoring of all earthmoving activities on a full-time basis. The supervising paleontologist shall have the authority to reduce monitoring once he/she determines the probability of encountering fossils has dropped below an acceptable level. A written letter must be provided to City of Temecula staff prior to the monitor reducing his/her monitoring duties. Specific Process: The developer is responsible for acquiring a qualified paleontologist monitor on-site at all times until it is determined unnecessary and approved by City of Temecula staff. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to issuance of a grading permit Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department and Building Department RAP D OkWO VI2-0612 LinfieldWitigation Monitoring Prognvndoc 7 Cultural Resources General Impact: Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, including archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures: A final report must be prepared by the paleontologist for submission to the project proponent, the County of Riverside, and the City of Temecula following accessioning of the Linfield Christian School fossil collection into the museum repository fossil collection. The report must describe the geology and stratigraphy parcel, summarize field and laboratory methods used, include faunal list, and an inventory of catalogued fossil specimens, evaluate the scientific importance of the specimens and discuss the relationship of any newly recorded fossil site in the parcel to relevant fossil sites previously recorded from the fossil -bearing rock unit in the parcel vicinity and from correlative rock units in other regions. Specific Process: The developer is responsible for acquiring a paleontologist to prepare a final report and submit the findings to the appropriate agencies. Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Prior to project completion Planning Department Transportation General Impact: Increase in overall traffic volume and congestion at key intersections Mitigation Measures: Improve Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements from 720' east of Linfield Way to the West Boundary of the site, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Specific Process: Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit Mitigation Milestone: This work can be phased with phase 1 being completed with the relocation of the entry road. Phase 2 of the improvements would be the roadway in front of the elementary school and completed with Certificate of Occupancy of any new buildings east of Linfield Way, on Pauba Road or within 5 years, whichever occurs first. Phase 3 would include the remaining improvements adjacent to RAP D 0120 0210 2-0 61 2 LinfieldWidgation Mondonng Progra .doc a Planning Area 2 (Future Faculty Housing) to the west boundary of the site and would be completed with the first building permit within Planning Area 2 or within 10 years, whichever occurs first. Responsible Monitoring Party Public Works and Planning Department Transportation General Impact: Increase in overall traffic volume and congestion at key intersections Mitigation Measures: Improve Rancho Vista Road (Secondary Highway Standards — 88' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvements along the North Boundary frontage, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Specific Process: Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit Mitigation Milestone: These improvements may be deferred until a driveway connection is made to Ranch Vista Road or phase 3 of the improvements, whichever occurs first. Responsible Monitoring Party Public Works and Planning Department Transportation Mitigation Measures: Improve Green Tree Road (Local Road Standards — 60' R/W) to include dedication of half -width street right-of-way, installation of half -width street improvement from Margarita Road to the North Boundary, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street light, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Specific Process: Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit Mitigation Milestone: These improvements may be deferred until a driveway connection is made to Rancho Vista Road or Phase 3 improvements, whichever occurs first. Responsible Monitoring Party Public Works and Planning Department R:1P D W002\02-0612 UnlieidWitlgation Monitoring Program.doc 9 Transportation General Impact: Increase in overall traffic volume and congestion at key intersections Mitigation Measures: A traffic study may be required to determine the precise timing of each Mitigation Measure if the City determines it is necessary. Specific Process: Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit Mitigation Milestone: Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Responsible Monitoring Parry Public Works and Planning Department Transportation General Impact: Increase in overall traffic volume and congestion at key intersections Mitigation Measures: A school zone and striping plan, per Caltrans standards, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and included in the street improvements for this project. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met, shall be installed by developer. Payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. Specific Process: Public Works and Planning staff will require each improvement prior to issuance of the first building permit Mitigation Milestone: Prior to issuance of first building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party Public Works and Planning Department RAP D 012002VY2-0612 UnfieldWitigation Monitoring Program.doc 10 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR to consider the matter described below: PA10-0348 Karen Raftery, on behalf of Linfield Christian School Proposal: A Phased Tentative Parcel Map to allow the existing Linfield Christian School to create five map phases comprised of one 3 -lot phase and four 1 -lot phases, ranging in size between 2.00 and 62.74 acres, located at 31950 Pauba Road Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment based upon a previously completed Environmental Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be adopted in compliance with CEQA Case Planner: Eric Jones, (951) 506-5115 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Great Oak Conference Room Date of Hearing: August 21, 2014 Time of Hearing: 1:30 p.m. 1, 1 � 1w � . ♦ � .�� ,� Ul I.• /NIS : �v`` . �. r750 1,500 11� The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Director's Hearing. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org. Any Supplemental Material regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m.). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.citvoftemecula.org — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. G:\PLANNING\2010\PA10-0348 Linfield School TM\Planning\Hearing\Notice of Public Hearing.doc