HomeMy WebLinkAbout060694 PC AgendaAGENDA
TFAVlECULA PIANNING COMMt%~ION
Ju~ 6, 19~4, 6:00 PM
Randno California Water District
Board Room
4213~ Winchester Road
Temeeula, CA 92S90
CALL TO ORDER:
ChairmR- Ford
ROLL CALL~'
Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer and Ford
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A mml of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that
are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. ff you desire to speak to
the Comminsioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be
filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda irons a "Request to Si~ak" form must be ~ed with the Planning Secre~-y before
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individmil speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA94-0019, Plot Plan
American Restaurant Group (Black Angus Restaurant)
Northwesterly comer of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road
To construct a 10,200 square foot restaurant on a vacant 1.9 acre parcel
in the General Commercial (C-P) zone.
Proposed Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA93-0067, ]Viinor Public Use Permit
Saint Thoma-~ Episcopal Church
27512 Enterprise Circle West
To allow a church in an existing building
Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301
Craig Ruiz
Denial
R:%WIMBERVG~q_ANCOMM~AGENDASXB-8-O4 613/94 vgw 1
Case No.:
Applicant:
Loc~ion:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
7. Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
P]allfler:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 26
Brian K~nnedy & Drake Kennedy
Southwesterly corne~ of Raneho California Road and Ridge Park Drive
To change the existing zoning from Residential Agriculture, 20 acre
minimum parcel size (R-A-20) to Manufacturing Service Commercial
(M-sc) and Open Space (OS).
Exempt from CEQA per Seaion 15270
Craig Rulz
Denial without prejudice
Tentative Parcel Map No. ~
David Mulvany
South side of Nicolas Road, approximately 2000 feet east of Calle
Medusa
Subdivide a 20 acre parcel into 68 residential units
Exempt from CEQA par Section 15270
Craig Ruiz
Continne to July 18, 1994 and Re-Notice
PA94=0022 (Palorna Del Sol Amendmen0
Kernper Real Estate Development Company
East of Margarita Road, west of Butter~ald Stage Road, noah of
Highway 79 and south of Pauba Road.
A request for Approval of Amendment #4 to Specific Plan No. 219,
Paloma Dal Sol, to adjust the boundaries of Planning Areas 1, 6 end 37
and to change the acreage for major roads.
Saied Naaseh
Recommend Approval to City Council
Specific Plan No. 228, Environmental Impaa Report No. 2Sl and
Addendum, Change of Zone No. ~481
MurdyfFrotter (Murdy Ranch)
The easterly side of Pala Road and southerly of Loma Linda Drive
A request for approval of a Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), Addendnm to the ELF., and Change of Zone for a 557 acre
p|an~ed residelRial COmmullity containing 2,495 dwelling units, 20 acres
of commercial development, 32 acres of park land, a junior high school
and senior high school.
Recommend Certification of the EIR and Addendure to the EIR,
Unmitigated Significant Impacts: Air Quality
Cumulative Loss of Agricultural Lands
Saied Naaseh
Continue and Re-Notice
R:WVlMBE~VG~ssLI~ICOMM%AGENDAS~6-6-94 e~3/94 vgw 2
~ase No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Cane No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Recommendation:
10. Cane No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner.'
Recommendation:
Master Conditional Use Permit
City of Temecnia
Citywide
Adopt a Resolution Amending Ordinance No. 348 to create provisiom
and requirements for the Approval of a Master Conditional Use l>=tmit.
Exempt from CEQA per Section 15061Co)(3)
David Hogan
Recommend Approval to the City Council
Specific Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No. 5589
Kernper Real Estate
South of Winchester Road bctween Ynez and Margarita Roads
Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot Commercial Core,
810,000 square feet of Office/Institutional and Mixed Use Residential
with 298,000 square feet of retail with an accompanying Change of Zone
request changing the zoning fzom R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
(Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minlm~.tm lot size) to SP (Specific Plan).
Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 340.
Unmitigated Significant Impacts:
Noise Air Quality
Agriculture Wildlife and Vegetation
Circulation Libraries
Debbie lYonoske
Recommend Approval to City Council
Specific Plan No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5617 and Environmental
lmpaa Report No. 348
Kernper Real Estate
South of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road
Specific Plan proposing 308 Single-Family Residential units, 12 acres of
Commercial, approximately 19.8 acres of Office/Commercial/Church,
a 5.8 acre Dentention Basin, 10.8 acres of Park and a 10.7 acre
Elementary School Site with an accompanying Change of Zone request
changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy
Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan).
Recommend Certification of the Environmental Impact Report No. 348
and Two Addendures.
Unmitigated Significant Impacts:
Seismic Safety Noise
Agriculture Climite and Air Quality
Wildlife and Vegetation Circulation
Utilities end Setvice
Debbie Ubnoske
Recommend Approval to City Council
Next meeting: July 18, 1994, 6:00 p.m., Ranelm California Wate~ District's Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
PLANN/NG DIRECTO R'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHERBUS/NESS
ADJOURNMENT
R:%WIMBERVG~q, ANC~GENDAS~6*6-94 6/3/94 vgw 4
ITEM #2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 6, 1994
Planning Application No.: PA94-0019, Plot Plan
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
~The Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA94~0019, Plot Plan; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 94-_ approving PA94-0019, Plot
Plan, based upon the Analysis and Findings, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval contained in the
Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
ARG Enterprises, Inc
REPRESENTATIVE:
Troy McClellan, Form Guild Architects
PROPOSAL:
A Plot Plan application to construct a 10,200square foot
Black Angus restaurant on a vacant parcel of land.
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez
Road
EXISTING ZONING:
General Commercial (C-P)
SURROUNDING
ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P (General Commercial)
S-P (Specific Plan 180)
C-P (General Commercial)
Interstate 15
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Highway Tourist Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
AM/PM Gas Station
Embassy Suites Hotel
Tower Center Commercial Center
~nterstate 15
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb
PROJECT STATISTICS
Parking
Standard 76
Compact 36
Handicapped ._.i
Total 116
Number of Restaurant Seats 324
Site Area Calculation
Use Square feet % of site
Building Area 10,200 12%
Landscaping 19,565 23%
Paving/Parking 54,392 65%
TOTAL 84,157 100%
BACKGROUND
On March 17, 1994, the applicant submitted Planning Application No. PA94-0019 for a
restaurant. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting for the project was held on
April 7, 1994. At the conclusion of the DRC meeting, staff requested the applicant make
several changes to the site and landscape plans to comply with various City requirements.
Subsequent to the DRC meeting, the applicant made the necessary changes to staff's
satisfaction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is for the construction of a 10,200 square foot Black Angus restaurant
on a vacant 1.9 acre parcel of land, a monument sign and wall signs. The building pad was
previously mass graded as part of the underlying map. In addition to the restaurant building,
the project will include.a total of 118 parking spaces and 19,565 square feet of landscaping.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan
The proposed project is located on the northwesterly corner of Rancho California Road and
Ynez Road. The project shares common drive aisles for access to Ynez Road with the
adjacent Chili's restaurant and Arco AM/PM gas station, and the nearby Tower Center
shopping center. The project will also share a common drive aisle located between the
restaurant and the AM/PM. Patrons of the gas station use the drive aisle to exit the station
and the restaurant will use the aisle for deliveries. To ensure that the aisle is clear for both
the gas station and emergency vehicles, the drive aisle will be posted as a no parking area (see
condition No. 12), deliveries to the restaurant will be restricted to the hours between 6:00 am
and 10:00 am (see condition No. 12) and no parking will be permitted in said drive aisle (see
condition No. 13). Restaurant delivery trucks will park in front of the restaurant entrance and
hand-carry supplies to the service delivery door |ccated on the northerly side of the building.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 2
The site plan incorporates a pedestrian walkway that provides access from Rancho California
Road to the main entrance, located on the westerly side of the building. The site plan also
provides outdoor waiting and a drop-off areas.
Architecture
The proposed building has been designed with materials to be compatible with the surrounding
buildings. The materials include Amarillo white stucco, slate grey tile roof, burgundy awnings
and wood trusses. It is staff's opinion that the structure will be compatible with the existing
buildings in the vicinity.
Siqnaqe
The proposed signage on the building meets the requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
However, the proposed on-site monument sign does not meet the requirements of City
Ordinance No. 93-09. The sign is to be located on the corner of Ynez Road and Rancho
California Road (see Exhibit "G"), and proposes the names of the three businesses, the Black
Angus, and two businesses located on adjoining (off-site) parcels. However, City Ordinance
No. 93-09 expressly prohibits off-site commercial signs. Further, Section 4 of Ordinance No.
93-09 states "no application for sign location plan, plot plan or other application discretionary
entitlement for an outdoor advertising display shall be accepted, acted upon, or approved.
Therefore, staff has conditioned the project to permit the on-site tenant as permitted by City
Ordinance No. 93-09 (see condition No. 8).
LandscaDincl
Ordinance No. 348 requires that a minimum of 10% of the parking area be landscaped. The
proposed plan provides for approximately 23% of the site to be landscaped. The landscaping
palette has been designed to be compatible with the existing landscaping of the surrounding
properties. The prominent design element of the plan is a water feature on the corner of
Rancho California Road and Ynez Road (see Exhibit "G"). The water feature incorporates the
design element of the corner properties on the southerly side of Rancho California Road.
Parkinq
Ordinance No. 348 requires that the project contain one parking space for every three seats
for a total of 108 spaces. The applicant has provided 76 standard parking spaces, 36 compact
spaces and 6 handicapped spaces. The total of 118 parking spaces exceeds the City's
requirements by 10 spaces.
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned C-P (General Commercial). Adjacent parcels to the North and East
are zoned General Commercial, Specific Plan to the South and Interstate 15 to the West. The
proposed restaurant use is consistent with the requirements of the C-P Zone and Sections
18.30 and 18.43 of Ordinance 348 which requires that the proposed use not pose a threat
to public health, safety and general welfare of the community.
R:\STAFFRP'n19PA94.PC 6/1/94
The General Plan Land Use Designation is Highway Tourist Commercial. The proposed
restaurant use is consistent with the Highway Tourist Commercial designation due to the fact
that the proposed use is similar in nature to the existing surrounding uses and the proposed
use of the subject site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project which determined the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the environment. However, mitigation measures contain
within the Conditions of Approval have been added to insure that no significant impacts occur
as result of this project. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been recommended for
adoption.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with Section 9.1 (General Commercial Zone) and 18.30 of Ordinance
No. 348. Sections 18.30 requires that the proposed use not pose a threat to public health,
safety and general welfare of the community, to conform to the logical development of the
land and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. All environmental impacts have been mitigated to below a level of significance. It
is staff's opinion that the expansion is consistent with applicable requirements.
FINDINGS
PA94-0019, Plot Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the fact that the
restaurant use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Highway
Tourist Commercial.
The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the
requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria
prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 and 18.30.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use
does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area
and the use is similar to the surrounding commercial uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No.
348.
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94.pC 6/1/94 klb 4
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Ynez Road.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the fact
that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project.
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4,
Resolution - Blue Page 6
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 20
Exhibits - Blue Page 21
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
Traffic Study o Blue Page 22
Ordinance No. 93-09 - Blue Page 23
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94.PC 6/1/94 klb
ATTACHIVlENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF TFIF. PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TI~fECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA94-0019 TO CONSTRUCT A 10,200
SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 1.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF YNF. Z ROAD AND
RANCHO CAt .wORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-270-047
WtIErRE~, Troy McClellan, on behalf of ARG, Inc., fried Planning Application No.
PA94-0019 in accordance with the City of Temecuh General Phn and Riverside County Land
Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WltF. REAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0019 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WttEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0019
on June 6, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WItEREAS, at the public heating, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0019;
NOW, TI~.REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFW, CITY OF
TE1VIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER1VIINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA94-0019 makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and
with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development Of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical d_evelopment of the surrounding property.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 7
B. The Planning Commksion, in approving proposed Planning Application No.
PA94-0019, makes the following specific findings, to wit:
1. PA94-0019, Plot Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan due to the
fact that the restaurant use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Highway
Tourist Commercial.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets
all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348..
3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or general weftare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria
prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 and 18.30.
4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because the use does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the
area and the use is similar to the surrounding commercial uses.
5. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws
due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State planning Laws.
6. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, circuhtion patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Ynez Road.
8. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
or natural environment 'as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the
fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project.
9. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
C. As condifioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA94-0019, as
proposed, conforms to the logical d~velopment of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to~ the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94.PC 611194 kJb 8
Seaion 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Comminsion hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA94-0019 to expand an existing automobile dealership
located on the northwesterly comer of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road and known as
Assossor's Parcel No. 921-270-047 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STEVEhi L FORD
CHAIRMAN
I I~.RF. Ry CERTt~'~' that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 199__ by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI4n .L
SF, CRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.pC 6/1/94 klb 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R;\STAFFRPT~lgPA94.PC 6/1/94 Idb
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan
Project Description: The construction and operation of a 10,200 square foot Black
Angus restaurant, wall signage and one on-site monument sign
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-270-047
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Bght (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00), which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred Fifty Dollars (91,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish
and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars (978.00) County
administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under
Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of Regulations Section
15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not
delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the
project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecule, its
agents, officers, and employees from any .claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Planning Application No. PA94-0019. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify
the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or
hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
R:~$TAFFRPT~lgPA94.pC 6/1/94 klb 11
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A", and
approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0019, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibits "D" & "E" , or as amended
by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C" , or as amended
by these conditions. (color elevations and material board).
Materials:
Stucco
Stucco-Accent
Metals
Awning
Roof
Wood Truss
Neon Tube
Colors: Amarillo White
Frazee 5444 D (Grey)
Frazee 6285 R (Rust)
Sunbrella Burgundy 4631
Maxi Tile - Slate Grey
Olympic Espresso
Red
Signage for the proposed project shall comply with exhibit "F" , or as amended by these
conditions. The proposed monument sign shall not include advertisement for of-site
businesses.
A minimum of 118 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 118 parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit "A".
A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
10. 2 Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
11.
Deliveries to the building shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 am. In
addition, the drive aisle to adjacent to the northerly side of the building, between the
restaurant and the service station shall be posted "No Parking at Any Time."
12.
At no time shall delivery vehicles be parked within the drive aisle adjacent to the
northerly side of the building, between the restaurant and the service station.
13.
The water feature on the corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road shall not be
constructed with-in the ultimate right-of-way of Rancho California Road.
14.
All existing trees along Rancho California Road shall be preserved on site. A notation
on the construction landscape plans shall state that all existing trees shall be preserved
on site.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PAS4.PC 6/1/94 klb 12
16.
The applicant shall make application and pay applicable application fee for Consistency
Check with the Department of Building and Safety.
17.
Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Construction Plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate
filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and
within the parking areas.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
19.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans, except as amended herein.
20.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the
Department of Planning.
21.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22
inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
22.
Additional landscaping shall be required to provide sufficient screening, if deemed
necessary by the Director of Planning.
23.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.pC 6/1/94 klb 13
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
24.
Comply with applicable provisions of the t991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code.
25.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
26.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
28.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility
regulations.
29.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
30.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
31.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
32.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
33.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all on-site flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
34.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
R:\STAFFRPT~l~PA94.PC 6/1/64 klb 1 af
35. plans shall be
improvements
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing
contiguous to the site.
36. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
37.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
State Water Resources Control Board;
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board;
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
Community Services District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
38.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
39.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
40.
An erosion control plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
41.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department, the Community Services District, and the Department of Public Works for
review. (Including the parkways in addition to private landscaping).
42.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been
already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
43.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.pC {I/1/94 kJb 15
44.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
45.
Concentrated on-site runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or
underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
46.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including upgrading or upsizing
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or obtaining a letter of approval
as directed by the Department of Public Works. The adequacy of the capacity of
existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified.
47.
A drainage easement or a letter of approval shall be obtained from affected property
owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto adjacent property.
A copy of the drainage easement, prior to recordation, or the letter of approval shall
be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The location of the
recorded easement shall be delineated on the grading plan.
48.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
49.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the precise grading plans to be
submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits
50.
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
51.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
a. Landscaping (slopes, medians, and parkways).
b. Erosion control and slope protection.
R:\STAFFRPl~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb 16
52.
All landscaping within the parkways along Ynez Road and Rancho California Road,
adjacent to Tower Plaza, shall be completed. Plans shall be designed in compliance
with City Standards and approved by the Planning Department.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
53.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Fire Department;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works; and
The Community Services District.
54.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished
to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
55.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
56.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
57.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
58.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to
be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which the Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility
fee. The amount of the bond shall be f/2.00 per square foot, not to exceed 910,000.
The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in
excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest
the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact
fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact
fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94,pC 6/1/94 klb I 7
Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy
59.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison;
Southern California Gas;
Planning Department; and
Department of Public Works.
60.
All on-site improvements and landscape improvements including the landscaping within
the parkways along Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, adjacent to Tower Plaza,
shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards.
61.
Adjacent to Tower Plaza, Rancho California Road is classified as an Urban Arterial
Highway with a 134 foot full width right-of-way, per the Circulation Element of the City
of Temecula General Plan. There is an existing 55 foot of half width right-of-way and
an additional 12 foot of dedication is required. Therefore, an additional 12 foot offer
of dedication shall be made to the City of Temecula on Rancho California Road along
Tower Plaza.
62. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
63.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
64.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
65.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Geologist transmittal dated April 21, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
66.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March 29, 1994,
a copy of which is attached.
67.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1194 Idb I 8
68. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmit~al dated March 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT~19PAS4.PC 6/1/S4 Idb 19
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
1AND MANAGFJ~NT AG
PI3nnin
April 21, 1994
TO: Craig Ruiz - City of Temecula - Planning Department
FROM: Steve Kupferman - Engineering Geologist
Riverside County Planning Department
City of Temecula Case No.: PA-94-0019 . "'.:
County Geologic Report Nos. 629 and 857:E.. "..~
This project site is'~"Y0~'~ed=~'.th~"Alq~ist2~i°l~]'i~!'Earthquake Fault
Zone and is...coverea.."b~'prev~usi~":'pr&Pa~ed"ge~10gic reports.
County Geologic Report== h'6. 6~9-.'.:ineluded'a~ ex~.lorator~ geologic
trench on the projects~e an~..~Onc~uded that active""'faults do not
traverse the site. County Geologic Report No. SS~"included a
trench directly adjacent to and north of the]sub3ect ~itei:and also
concluded that no active faults traverse the adjacent site.~:' Copies
of lettersapproving these reports are attached. .:... '
Based on the above, a geUl6gic report to evaluate the earthquake
fault zone is not necessary =for th'is project. It'::is recommended
that a geotechnical report, address~n~ soils and foundation
conditionsat the site,..be prepared prior. to issuance Qf..grading or
building permits. ~ .
Please do n.o~ hesitate to call me a~ (909) 275-3211 if you need
further assistance.
: RECEIVED
"~' .... .... APR 2 2
......... ..............................................................Ans'd ............
4080 Lmmm Steer, 9th Floor*Rivenide, C_.alifomia 925010(909) 27S-3200
P. O. Box 1409oRjven~de, Cdifomia 92502-1409,FAX (909) 275-3157
RIVER_,DE COUNTY PLANK"
IG DEPARTMENT
Joseph A. Richards, Planning Director
Kelth D. Downs, A.I.C.P., Assistant Director
June 29, 3.993
1180 Nevada Street, Suite 200
Redlands, CA 92374-2843
Attention: Paul Davis
Nicholas Selmeczy
RE: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
Job Number 40007-049-02
CU 93-089
APN: 921-270-041
County Geologic Report No. 857
City of Temecula
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed your report entitled "Fault Investigation Report,
Alqutst-Prlolo Special Studies Zone, Proposed ARCOAH/PM Facility,
Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA," dated June 11,
1993; and your "Addendumto Fault Investigation Report," dated June
25, 1993.
It should be noted that this report has been reviewed as an update
and supplement to County Geologic Report (CGR) No. 629F, due to the
potential for cross-faulting on the subject site. CGR 629F was
previously prepared by Converse Consultants Inland Empire for an
office building and parking structure on this site.
Your report and addendum determined that:
1. No active faults are known to pass through the subject property.
2. Moderate to strong ground shaking, as a result of seismicity on
the nearby Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone can be expected at the site
during the anticipated 11re of the proposed structure. A peak
horizontal ground acceleration of 0.50g would result from a 100-
year probable 6.5 magnitude event on this fault zone
3. The water level variations measured in the borings on the site
are moat likely the result of local stratigraphy and active
pumping, rather than a fault-related barrier.
Main OliVe
4080 LEMON STREET. 9th FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 275-3200
FAX (714) 275-3157
79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. SUITE E
BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 863-8277
FAX (619) 86,3-7062
County Geologic Repoz~c No. 857
page 2
4. The exploratory trench backfill should be considered as
unccmpacted fill.
Your report and addendum recommended that:
1. No building setbacks are required or recommended relative to t be
potential for surface fault rupture.
2. Structures shall be constructed in compliance with the current
edition of the Uniform Building Code and rounded as recommended in
the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared by SEACOR,
dated June 4, 1993 (County Geologic Report No. 858) for this
project.
3. The exploratory trench backfill shall be removed and recompacted
in accordance with the recommendations made in the June 4, 1993
SEACOR preliminary geotechnical investigation for this project.
It is our opinion that your report and addendumwere prepared in a
competent manner and satisfies the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone Act and the request for additional fault information by the
City of Temecula. Final approval of your report is hereby given.
This report and addendum now supplement the conclusions and
recommendations made in County Geologic Report No. 629F, previously
prepared for this property.
The recommendations made in your report shall be adhered to in the
design and construction of this project.
Very truly yours,
R E OUNTY P ING DEP TMENT
eith D. owns, I'nt im la ing Director
S A. Kupfe neering Geologist
SK:al
cc: Craig Ruiz - City of Temecula
Ida Sanchez - Markham & Associates
Yon M. Carpenter - ARCO Products Company
Earl Hart - California Division of Mines and Geology
· - RIVERSIDE COUNTY
HRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRLS, CALIFORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3153
J.M.I'IARRXS
~ Cy4'm~=
March 29, 1994
TO:
ATTEN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CRAIG RUIZ
PA94-0019
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced.
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula
Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the
procedures established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering
1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure, which must be available before any combustible material
is placed on the job site.
The required fire flow shall be available from a super
(6"x4"x2-21/2") fire hydrant, .located not less than 25 feet or more
than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along
vehicular travelways.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to
the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a
registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval
signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the
local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on the job site.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the
permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type,
area separation or built-in fire=protection measures.
PA93-0019
PAGE 2
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer
shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $558.00 to the
City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The
post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be
located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant,
and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that
the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included
on the title page of the building plans.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to install a fire alarm
system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If
building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material
Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets
shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior
to installation.
Install a hood duct fire extinguishering system. Contact a
certified fire protection company for proper placement. Plans must
be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the
Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be
provided, where exit signs are required by section 3314(a).
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of
2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper
placement.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and
driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be
mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire
hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall
prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan
designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and
or signs.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minirmlm 12
inches in height, on the street side of the building with a
contrasting background. ~
PA-93-0019
PAGE 3
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
deposit, with the City of Temecula, the sum of $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there
exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
in the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of'these conditions shall be
referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section.
RAYMOND H. PEGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
Irahim
Water
March 25, 1994
RECEIVED
NAB 2 9 19Sz
. ns'd
John F. Hex~nigar
Kenneth C. Dealy
Linda M. Fregoso
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SLrBJECT:
Water Availability
APN 921-270-047
Black Angus Restaurant
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced properly is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, ff any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SD:ebZg/F186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
· Eastern Municipal XX/ater District
Craig Ruiz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
March 25,
1994
HAR 2 9
Arts 'd
SUBJECT: PA 94-0019 (Blaok Angus Restaurant Plot Plan)
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
General
It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed
restaurant located at the northwest corner of the intersection of
Ynez and Rancho California Roads.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service area. However, it must be understood the available service
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of
the subject project, the status of the District's permit to
operate, and the service agreement between the District and the
developer of the subject project.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
8-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer located along Ynez Road,
fronting the subject project.
18-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer located along Ynez Road,
fronting the subject project.
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacimo, California 92581-87,00 · Telephone (909) 92~5-7676 · Fax (909) 929-02~57
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jadnto Avenue, SanJadnto * Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E OakLtnd Avenue, Hemet, CA
craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
March 25, 1994
Page 2
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468.
Very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David G.
Senior Engineer
Customer Service Department
DGC/cz
AB 94-305
(wp-nnv~-PA940019.clz)
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT~I6PA94.PC 6/1/94 klb
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Black Angus Resta. rant
planning Application No. PA94-0019, Plot Plan
The northwesterly comer of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road
The comaion of a 10,200 square foot restaurant on a 1.9 acre
parcel
May 6, 1994
Troy McClellen
Form Guild
34094 Mazo Avenue
Dana Point, CA 92629
(714) 240-8321
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section HI)
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The deslruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
B:%STAFFI~'T%1OPAB4.1ES 5110/94 klb ]
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards su~ as
earthquakes, laudslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or simila[ hazards?
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emi.~sions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the come or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
mount of surface runoff?.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the mount of surface water in any water body?.
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or mrbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)?
m
X
R:~STAFFI~T~19PA94.1ES 6110~94 klb 2
Ye~
Maybe
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, thr~'~eed, or
endangered species of plants? _ _
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? __ __
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? _ _
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or hum_hers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthic org;nisms, and/or insects)?___
b. Reduction of the humben of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals?
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ __
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ~ _ __
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? __ _ .X.
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __ __ .X_
7. Light and Glare, Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? .X. __ __
8. Land Use, Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? .X_ __ __
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan? _ _ _.X_
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? __ __ .X_
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? __ _
R:%STAFFIFl'~1OPAO4.1E~ 6/10/94
Yes Maybe No
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result h:
a. A risk of an e~q}losion or the release of any h=-~rdous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (h~-~rdous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticicles, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazsrdous or toxic
materigs Cmcluding, but not limited to oil, pesticldes, chemicals,
or radiation)?
c, Possible interfe~eac~ with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
11. Popuhtion. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or ~rowth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the pwposal affea existing housing or create a demand
for additional honsin~
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. l~ffec~ on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation?
d. Alterstions to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police proteaion?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, inchdin~!roads?
X
X
X
X
X
R:%STAFFIFTVtgPA94.1ES 5/'t0~4 klb 4
Yes Maybe No
_ _
f. Other governmental services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?.
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a n~l fur new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water systems?
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage systems?
f. Solid waste disposal systems?
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above?
11. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic po!lutant emissions?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities?
R:%STAFFI~'r%19PA94.1E8 5/10/94 kJb $
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paloontologic, pre~isWric,
arcJ~aeologie.~l or hLstori~ site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or objec~
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ~a~nic ~ltural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or s~red uses within the
potential impact area?
NO
R:%STAFFIFT%19PA94.1E8 6110/94
HI. DISCUSSION OF THE !~aRONM]~YTAL IMPACT~
Earth
l.a.
No. Although the proposed project will result in minimal grading there will not be changes in the
base geologic substructures. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
projea.
l.b.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil proffie to some degree and results in soil displacement,
compaction and over-covering. A grading plan will be certified by the Engineering Deparh.ent
which will mitigate any potential impacts.
I.C.
No. The proposed site is currently graded and further development of the proposed projea will
not require substantial grading and as a result will not alter the existing wpography. Therefore,
no significant impacts are anticip~ as a result of this project.
1.d.
No. There are no unique geologic or physical futures on the site. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.e.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain
high until dismrbad areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant
but will be mitigated through minimal grading and use of watering trucks and the planting of
l.f.
No. The site has been graded and is vacant and unlandscapad. The proposed improvements will
include hardscope and permanent landscaping. The improvements will decrease the amount of
siltation, deposition or erosion. Therefore, no signi~cam impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
1.g.
No. There will be no modification of water course or body of water. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.h.
Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction area. A Geotechnical Report was prepared
for the adjacent parcel. The project is eondi~dned to comply with the recommendations set forth
in that report. The conditions placed upon this projea will reduce this impact below a level of
significance.
1.i.
No. The project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Air
2.a.
Yes. While this project will have a cumulative impact on the overall air quality of the South Coast
Air Basin, this impact is not considered significant. This impact is not considered significant since
the air emissions from this project are not expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) threshold of significance.
R:XSTAFFR°T~lgPA94.1ES 5110/94 klb 7 :'~
2.b,c.
No. The proposed project will not result in the creation of objectionable odors or an alteration of
air movement, temperatures, or moisture or any change in eJimMe either locally or regionally.
Therefore, no significant im.nal~ are anticip~_t~ as a result of this project.
Water
3.a.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the
project will have a significant effect on any body of water.
Yes. The proposed project will increase the nm,~unt of impermeable surfaces on the site which will
reduce the amount of water absorption. A hydrology study prepared for the projeet has determined
that existing drainage fac~ities have adequate capacity to handle the increased surface runoff.
Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
3.c.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated due to the fact that the project w~l not result in changes to the course or flow of flood
waters.
3.d.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated due to the fact that the project wfil not result in significant changes in the amount of
surface water in any water body.
3.e.
No. The project is not located near any body of water. Therefore, no significant impacts is
anticipated due to the fact that the project will not result in discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality.
3.f,g.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of ground waters.
The proposed project will not interfere with the present ground water conditions. Therefore, there
will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
3.h.
No. Due to the small size of the project, it is not anticipated that there will be a significant effea
on the public water supply or system.
No. The project is not located in the 100-year flood plain or in a area that is subject to flooding.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated due to the fact that the project will not expose
people or property to water related hazards such as flood.
Plant Life
4.a.
No. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants
on the site. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
4.b.
No. The project site has been previously graded. Curran~y, there are no unique, rare, threatened
or endangered species of plants on the site. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a
result of this project.
R:%STAFFRrI'~19PA94.IES BI10/94 klb
4.c.
No. While the project will introduce new species of plants through the addition of landscaping,
the site has been previously graded end there are no native species on this site. Therefore, there
will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
4.d.
No. This property is not currently used as farm land and is not identified in the Draft General Hen
as en area of agriculmrsi significance. Therefore, there will be no sigulficent impacts as a result
of this project.
Animal Life
5.a,c,d,e. No. The proposed project is in en area that has been experiencing urbaniT~tion for a number of
years. The site is currently graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this
location. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to animal life as a result of this project.
5.b.
No. The site is currently graded and is in an area that has been experiencing urbaniT~tlon for a
number of years. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area.
Habitat Conservation fees have been paid as part of the underlying parcel map to mitigate the effect
of cumulative impacts. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Noise
6.a.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Construction related
impacts will be mitigated through the standard conditions of approval for construction activities
which will be imposed by the Public Works Department. Long-term noise impacts will occur due
to increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be significant since the surrounding
land uses are not noise sensitive.
6.b,c.
No. Severe noise and severe vibrations will not be generated by the proposed project. Therefore,
there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Light and Glare
Yes. The project site is located within the Mount Pelomar Observatory Special Lighting District.
The lighting standards within this district require that only low pressure sodium street and security
lights be installed end ell other lighting must be oriented or shielded to reduce the glare in the night
sky near the observatory. The impact of the additional light and glare will be mitigated by
following the standards of the Mount Pelomar Observatory Special Lighting District (Ordinance No.
655') and through the appropriate design of the lighting system.
Land U~¢
8.a.
Yes. This site is currently vacant. However, the General Hen Land Use Designation is
Highway/Tourist Commercial. The surrounding lend uses are also designated Highway/Tourist
Commercial and Professional Office. The current zoning is General Commercial. The surrounding
developed parcels are commercial and office uses. The intensification of the proposed use is not
enticipated W be significant due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the City's
General Plan.
R:XSTAFFFI~T%19PA94.1E$ 6/10/94 klb 9
8.b.
No. The proposed d~velopmeat is consisteat with the General Plan Land Use Plan Designation of
Highway/Tourist CommerCial ned file elLtreat zOnln_~ designation of General Commercial.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this pwject.
Natural Rsources
9.a,b.
No. This project, due to its' small size and nature, will result in a marginal increase in file rate
of use of any natural resource and file depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource. Therefore,
due to small increase in file use of natllral resources, there will be no significant impacts as a result
of this project.
Risk of U~et
10.a,b. No. The proposed use does not use or store hazardous substances. Therefore, there will be no
significant impacts as a result of this project.
lO.c.
No. During construction, it should not be necessazy to close any streets which would intezfere with
emergency vehicles. If street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and
Sheriff Depamnent. The project is design to have adequate access for emergency vehicles.
Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
P~pulation
ll.
No. The proposed project is expected to create approximately 45 jobs. The project will have a
cumulative impact on file regions population but is not considered to be significant due to the small
number of jobs created.
Housiw,
12.
No. The proposed commercial project will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a
demand for additionel housing. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this
project.
Transnortation/Circulation
13.a.
No. This project will generate additional vehicular movement. However, a traffic study prepared
for this projea determined that the increase in traffic volume is not considered to be significant.
The recent improvements constructed by Assessment District 88-12 on Ynez Road are sufficient
to handle the increased ~affic.
13.b.
Yes. The project will create a need for additional parking spaces. The project has been designed
to meet the City's requirements for parking. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a
result of this project.
13.c.
No. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the site. However, the
traffic study prepared for this project has determined that this increase will not be significant. The
traffic that is generated by the project may add an incremental impact w file 1-15 Interchanges
which are curren~y operating at capacity during peak hours. This potential impact will be
R:%STAFFlivI~19PA94.1ES 5110/94 Idb ]0 ~'
mitigated by a transportation improvement mitigation fee. There will not be a significant impact
upon existing transportation systems due to the small size of the project.
13.d.
No. The project has been designed so that there will not be alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and/or goods. Therefore, there w~l be no significant impacts
as a result of this projea.
13.e.
No. The project is not located near, nor will it use waterborne, rail or air traffic. Therefore, there
will be no signi~cnat impacts resulting form this project.
13.f.
Yes. Any increase in Waffle will increase the potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
pedestrians. However, the street improvemmats that have recen~y been constructed will reduce the
impact below a level of significance.
Public Services
14.a,b,e. No. The projea will require public services in the ereas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and
public facilities, This impact is not considered significant due to the small size and natore of the
project.
14.c,d,f. No. Due to the small size and nature of the proposed pwject, there will be no substantial effects
on these public services.
EriefLaY
15.a,b.
No. Due to the small size of this project, the projea will not result in the use of substantial
mounts of fuel or energy or substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of energy. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts
as a result of this project.
Utilities
16.a,b,c,d,
e,f,g. No. Adequate utilities exist for this project. The project has been condilioned to meet the
requirements of all utilities to insure that any impacts will be mitigated to below a level of
significance.
Human Health
17.a,b. No. The construction of this projea will not create any health hazards. This projea is not located
near sensitive recepwrs. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projea.
Aesthetics
18.a,b,c. No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public. The elevations of
the proposed project are architecturaly compatible with the surrounding buildings. Therdore, there
will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
R:~STAFFFI~'~19PA94.1ES 6110/94 Idb 11 ~,
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreotional uses nor will the project create the need
for additional facilities. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
20.a.
No, The City's General Plan does not identify this area as an "Area of Sensitivity for
Archaeological Resources". The site is currently graded. Therefore, there will be no significant
impacts as a result of this project.
20.b.
No. The project site is vacant and does not co~i- any known prehistoric buildings, structures or
objects. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
20.c.
No. The pwject site is vacant and its' development is not expected to significantly impact any
known IIDiqlle e~hniC values. Therefore, there Will be no significant impacts as a result of this
project.
20.d.
No. The project site is vacant end is not known to have any existing religious or sacred uses.
Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
R:%STAFFF~T%lSPA94.1ES 5/10/84 Idb 12 ~
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustnlninov
levels, threaten to 01iminnt~ a phlDt, bird or nnimnl
species, Or ellmln~te important examples of the major
periods of California histury or prehistoty?
Yes Maybe No
_ _ X
Does the projea have the potential to achieve abort
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A abort term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A projea's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?.
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the projea have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulativdy, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological COmmUnities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability* (Section 711.2, Fish end (]me Code).
X
R:%STAFFRvl'%lBPA94.1ES 5/10/94 klb ]3 ~
ENVIRONMENTAL Dta'F, AO41NATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the nttached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a levfl of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Preparedby:
Signature
Craig Ruiz. Assistant Planner
Name and Title
May 9. 1994
Date
R:XSTAFFl!~I'~1OPAg4.1ES 5/10/94 klb 14 ~'
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94,pC 6/1/94 Idb
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEIV
"' I ~ALIFORNIi
CASE NO.: PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE: June 6, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~lgPA94.PC 5/31/94 klb
CiTY OF TEMECULA
+%
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL
R'4 'S
~ S-P |180|
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION: C-P, GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CASE NO,: PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN
P.C. DATE: June 6, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 5/31/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
\
CASE NO.: PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: June 6, 1994
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 5/31/94 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
TRAFFIC STUDY
R:~,STAFFRPT~lgPA94.PC 6/1/94
~ TRAFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS
March 11, 1994
May 3, 1994 (Revision No. 1)
Mr. Troy McClellan
Project Architect
Form Guild
34102 Violet Lantern
Dana Point, CA 92629
Dear Mr. McClellan:
As requested, we have conducted a traffic study to examine the
adequacy of traffic circulation within the project site and
the potential impact of project traffic on the existing
shopping center driveways. Detailed study analyses are as
follows:
1. Pro~ect Location and Description
The proposed project will occupy approximately 1.932 acres
of land situated at the northwest corner of the intersec-
tion of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road in the City of
Temecula (see Figure 1). The project site is within the
existing Tower Plaza Shopping Center. The project will
consist of a 10,200 square-foot Black Angus Restaurant.
2. Project Traffic
Peak hour traffic generation forecasts for the proposed
project are summarized below:
AM Peak Traffic Hour PM Peak Traffic Hour
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Land Use
Generation Rate
Quality Restaurant 5.19 1.14 6.33 6.32 3.40 9.72
(Trips/TSF)
Traffic Generation
Quality Restaurant 53 12 65 65 35 100
(10.2 TSF)
TSF denotes 1,000 square feet of floor area
Source of Generation Rate: Trip Generation, 5th Edition,
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use code
831(Quality Restaurant)
3100 MARYWOOD DR. ORANGE, CA 92667 (714] 974-7863 FAX (714] 974-1043
Page 2
3. Project Trip Distribution and Assignments
The directional distribution of the project-generated trips
was estimated based on the existing traffic patterns and
the surrounding land uses. Because of the service-oriented
characteristic of this project, it can be reasonably
estimated that 70% of the new trips generated by the
project will be originated from south of the project site
and the remaining 30% will be from the north. Based on
these trip distribution percentages, project traffic was
assigned as turning movements at the two Tower Plaza's
southerly driveways (see Figure 2).
4. Site Access
Direct access to the proposed project will be made at the
two existing Tower Plaza's southerly driveways on Ynez
Road. To determine the impact of future traffic generated
by the proposed project on the operation of these
driveways, existing driveway traffic turning movement
volume counts were collected. A total of 133 egressing
right-turn vehicles were observed at the southerly-most
driveway during the P.M. peak traffic hour. These vehicles
were observed to turn freely without any waiting delay.
The total combined existing plus project traffic right-
turning out of this driveway will be 133 + 25 158
vehicles per hour, or approximately 3 vehicles per minute.
The available safe gap for traffic right-turning out of the
driveway averages 8 vehicles per minute during the P.M.
peak traffic hour. This exceptionally long safe gap occurs
whenever the northbound left-turn signal phase is activated
· at the signalized Tower Plaza Shopping Center middle
driveway.. The driveway aisle between Ynez Road and the
first parking circulation aisle that leads to the project
site can store up to 6 vehicles. Therefore, no overflowing
of queueing traffic will be anticipated to block this
parking circulation aisle with the addition of project
traffic.
The middle driveway is presently signalized. This driveway
can accommodate a total of 8 eastbound vehicles per lane.
The left-turn pocket on Ynez Road can store up to 10
northbound left-turn vehicles. To assess the adequacy of
this driveway and the northbound left-turn pocket to handle
the additional project traffic, the following field
observations were taken on 5-2-94 between 4:30 P.M. and
5:30 P.M.:
The longest observed traffic queue waiting to exit out
of this driveway consists of 4 left-turning vehicles
and 2 right-turning vehfeles.
Page 3
b e
No stacking problem was observed for the left-turn
pocket on Ynez Road except for the short duration
between 4:45 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. During this period,
heavy northbound traffic left-turning into the Tower
Plaza was observed to overflow out of the left-turn
pocket.
As evidenced from the field observations, no stacking
problem was observed for either the eastbound left-turn or
right-turn driveway exiting traffic. The addition of 10
project trips in an hour will not cause traffic stacking on
this driveway. The existing stacking problem for
northbound traffic left-turning into the Tower Plaza can
easily be mitigated through the lengthening of left-turning
signal timing. This left-turn stacking situation occurs
only during the short duration between 4:45 P.M. and 5:00
P.M. However, the estimated 46 incoming restaurant trips
will not begin until after 6:00 P.M.
Exhibits "A" and "B" show the detailed level of service
calculations for existing plus project traffic during the
P.M. peak traffic hour for the two study Tower Plaza
Shopping Center driveways. Results of these level of
service calculations are outlined below for comparison:
Tower
Plaza Driveway
Southerly
Driveway
Critical Traffic Turning Movement
Level of Service
Eastbound Eastbound
Right-Turn Left-Turn
Out of Plaza Out of Plaza
Northbound
left-Turn
Into Plaza
Middle C C C
Driveway
Page 4
5. Off-site Traffic Impact Analysis
The intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road is
identified to be most directly impacted by the project
traffic. For a location to be significantly impacted by
the project, it should experience an increase of 5% or more
in traffic volumes due to the project traffic. However,
this intersection is found to experience an increase of
only 1% in peak hour traffic volumes due to the project
traffic as shown below:
Percent increase
project
100 traffic
traffic
P.M. peak hour project traffic due to
Existing P.M. peak hour intersection
71
4961
x 100 1.43%
x
Because of this insignificant project traffic impact, no
further intersection capacity analysis is required for the
intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road.
6. On-site Traffic Circulation
The internal traffic circulation to the project
site has been found to be satisfactory after review and
evaluation in term of parking layouts, circulation aisle
widths and turning radii. To further enhance the on-site
circulation, the following improvements are recommended:
a. Prohibit parking alOng'the circulation aisle between
Arco and the proposed restaurant.
Stripe the middle driveway for both right-turn and
left-turn lanes.
7. Findings and Conclusions
Analysis of traffic generated by the proposed Black Angus
Restaurant project indicates that this project will not
have any significant impact upon the Tower Plaza Shopping
Center driveways. These driveways will continue to operate
at a good "C" level of service with the addition of project
traffic. The additional project traffic will not create
any significant vehicle stacking problems at both the
southerly and middle Tower Plaza driveways. The only off-
site mitigating measure will consist of lengthening the
northbound left-turn signal timing for the middle driveway.
Page 5
It has been a pleasure to serve you on this project. We
trust that this traffic analysis will be of immediate
assistance to you and the City of Temecula. If you have
any questions concerning our finidngs and conclusions or
need additional information, please do not hesitate to call
us at any time.
Respectfully submitted,
TRAFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS
C. Hui Lai, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
FIGURES
TOWER PLAZA
EXISTING ARCO AM/PM
EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAN
)POSED BLACK ANGUS RESTAURANT
EXISTING CHILIS RESTAURANT
FIGURE 1
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
TOWER PLAZA
{ ~ EXISTING ARCO AM/PM
[" ' ' EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAN
OPOSED~
EXISTING CHILIS RESTAURANT
FIGURE 2
P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS
i
PM
3'4'94
:30 to
PM
EXISTING ARCO AM/PM
5:30
EXISTING CHILIS RESTAURANT
EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAN
B L
~ ~_/~',,,
4:45 to 5:45
3-10-94
FIGURE 3
EXISTING P.M. PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
ORDINANCE NO. 93-09
R:'~STAFFRPT~19PA94.PC 6/1/94 kJb
ORDINANCE NO. 93--09
AN ORDINANCE OF TI/E TEMECULA CrrY
COUNCIL ESTABLISI/ING REGULATIONS FOR ~
USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS
~ CITY COIYNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES I:YF~R~.Ry ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. F~ That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt a
gener~ plan within thirty (30) months .following incorporation. During that 30-month period
of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the
following requirements axe met:
A. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan.
B. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of
the following:
1. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be
consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered at the current time.
- 2, There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements
of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan,
(hereina.fter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan
for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of
the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City
is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
C. The City is proc_,__'~__ing in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan.
91-09
-I-
D. The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this tifio, each
of the following:
1. Thex~ is reasonable pwbability that this Ordinance No. 93-119 will be
consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be Studied
within a reasonable time.
2. There is li~e or no probability of substantial detriment to. or int~erence with
the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultirnately inconsistent with the
plan.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable rextuirementi
of state law and local ordinances.
Section 2. Purvose The purpose of this Ordinance is to set forth the development
standards for the installation and maintenance of outdoor advertising displays within all land-use
zones of the City. The purpos~ of these regulations is to ensure that the design and location of
outdoor advertising displays are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the
City.
It is a desire of the City that the design of this community be of the highest quality, that
new development be architecturally distinctive as well as homogeneous in design, and that
accessory facilities be compatible with the overall theme. The quality of signage plays a very
distinctive role in achieving the above. When abused, signs can create a visual blight which
detracts from the quality of the environment and an individual' s visual perception of the City.
Recogni~ng that the primary purpose of signs is propeg business identification, the
regui~tions of this Ordinance are enacted to:
A. Ensure that signs erected within the City are compatible with their surroundings and
are in keeping with the policies of the City;
B. Provide for the identification of businesses and should not be used for advertising
purposes;
C. Promote traffic safety and community identity while also enhancing the quality of the
visual environment of the City; and
D. Establish regulations which control outdoor advertising displays within the City.
Section 3. Definitions For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, t~rms,
phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings ~iven herein. Then consisv'nt with the
Orals 93-09
context, words used in the present tense singular include the plural
.4,. 'Commercial Off-Premise Sign' means any sign structure advertising an
establishment, merchandise, service, or entertainment, which is not sold, produced,
manufactured, or furnished at the property on which the sign is located. A commercial off-
premise sign my be commonly known or referred to as an off-premises billboard.
B. "Non-Commercial Off-Premise Sign" means any sign structure exhibiting non-
commercial speech or message in lieu of commercial sign copy; and any sign structure extfibiting
non-commercial signing unrelated to the buying or selling of commodities or anything involved
and practiced.
Section 4. Prohibited Sitms The establishment of the foliowing outdoor advertising
displays are hereby prohibited and no application for sign location plan, plot plan, or other
application discretionary enti~ement for a outdoor adverti.~ing display shall be accepted, acted
upon, or approved.
SectionS. Exempt Outdoor Advertising DiSplays The proviSions of this Ordinance shall
not apply to any application for:
A. Directional Signs, as defined in Chapter 5 of the Temecula Municipal Cede.
B. On-site advertising structures and signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.5 of the non-
codifi_ed ordinances of the County of Riverside and adopted by the City of Temecula under
Ordinance No. 90-04).
C. Non-commercial off-premises advertising swactures and signs, subject to the
following design and performance standards:
less;
Square footage of the sign board is limited to twelve (12) square feet or
2. There shall be no more than one (1) sign board per parcel;
3. Total height of a ground-mounted sign and supporting structure shall not
exceed Six (6) feet;
4. No sign shall be illuminated.
Section 6. Non-conforming Outdoor Advertising Displays All outdoor advertising
Ord, 93-4)9
displays, in any zone, lawfiffiy constructed and erected prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance, which do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinance for the
pax~cular zone in which they are located, shall be acceptea:l as non-conforming sign.
Section 7. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance confl~ct with any provisions
of Article XIX of Ordinance No. 348 the provisions of tkis Ordinance shall apply.
Section 8. Effective Date This Ordinan~ shall be in full force and effect thirty
· (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in thre~ designated posting places.
Section 9. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and it for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 10. Environmental Compliance, The City Council hereby finds that this project
does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 Co) (3).
Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted as required by laws.
PASSED, APPROVED ~ ADOPTED this llth day of May, 1993.
ATFF_.ST:
~~k,~Citye~rk ~ )
[SEAL]
ITEM #3
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 6, 1994
Planning Application No. PA93-0067
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
1. ADOPT
Resolution No. 94- denying Planning
Application No. PA93-0067 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report
St. Thomas Episcopal Church
Edward Renner
To locate a church in an existing building
27512 Enterprise Circle West
Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC)
North:
South:
East:
West:
N/A
Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC)
Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC)
.ManUfacturing Service Commercial (M-SC)
Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC)
Business Park (BP)
Commercial/Industrial Building
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial/Industrial Building
Commercial/Industrial Building
Commercial/Industrial Building
Commercial/Industrial Building
R:\STAFFRPT~67PA93.PC 5/31/94 klb
BACKGROUND
This application was submitted to the Planning Department on April 2, 1993. The first
Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting for the project was held April 22, 1993.
At the conclusion of the DRC meeting, the applicant was informed that the project did not
contain the necessary number of parking spaces as required by City Ordinance No. 348. Staff
discussed with the applicant the various options contained within Ordinance No. 348 that
would provide the necessary number of parking spaces. Planning staff has had numerous
correspondence, both written and verbal, with the applicant regarding the resolution of the
parking issue. To date, the applicant has been unable to meet the requirement of the City's
Ordinance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project would allow a church to occupy a 6,500 square foot suite in an existing building
in a commercial/industrial center.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project contains 14 parking spaces, approximately 23 spaces less than the
number required by City Ordinance No. 348° Staff has had numerous meetings and
discussions with the applicant to explore various alternatives to acquire the necessary number
of parking spaces. These options included shared parking agreements, bicycle parking, mass
transit, and private van pools. To date, the applicant has been unable to acquire said parking.
The applicant's inability to obtain the parking spaces has resulted in the application being
incomplete for approximately 13 months. Due to the lack of activity on the application by the
applicant, staff gave the applicant the option of withdrawing the application or proceeding to
public hearing with a recommendation of denial without prejudice. The applicant not
responded to the afore mentioned options; therefore, the matter has been scheduled for
Planning Commission hearing.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The site is currently zoned Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC). The General Plan Land
Use Designation is Business Park (BP).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Per Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA does not apply
to projects which a public agency disapproves. Therefore, no environmental determination
was prepared for this project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Because the project does not have the required number of parking spaces, and the applicant
has not responded to staff's requests to either resolve the parking issue or withdraw the
application, and the application has been incomplete for approximately 13 months, staff is
recommending that the project be denied without prejudice.
R:\STAFFRPT~67PA93.pC 5/31/94 klb 2
FINDINGS
The proposed use or action does not comply with all applicable requirements of state
law and local ordinances. The applicant has failed to submit all required information
in a timely manner in order for the project to be deemed complete in accordance with
State and local law.
The project does not have the required number of parking spaces as required by
Ordinance No. 348, therefore, the project cannot be found consistent with the
requirement of said Ordinance.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
Exhibits - Blue Page 7
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
R:\STAFFRPT~67PA93.pC 5/31/94 klb 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO, 94.-
R:%STAFFRP'T%67PA93.pC 5/31/94 kJb 4
A'l-l'A/NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TI~IECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA93-0067, MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO PERMIT ~ LOCATION OF A
CHURCH IN AN EXISTING Bt~,DING LOCATED AT
27512 ENTERPRISE CIRCt,E WEST AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-480-019
WB'F. REAS, Edward Renner fried Planning Application No. PA93-0067 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
Wi~.REAS, the Minor Public Use Permit application was not processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WI~.REAS, the Planning Commission considered the Minor Conditional Use Permit on
June 6, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
W~-REAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA93-0067;
NOW, TI~.REFORE, TtFF~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Public Use
Permit, makes the following findings, to wit:
(1) The proposed use or action does not comply with all applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances. The applicant has failed to submit all required
information in a timely manner in order for the projea to be deemed complete in accordance
with State and local law.
(2) The project does not have the required number of parking spaces as
required by Ordinance No. 348, therefore, the project cannot be found consistent with the
requirement of said Ordinance.
R:\STAFFRPT~67PA93,pC 5/31/94 klb 5
Section 3. Environmental Compliance, Per Section 15270 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency
disapproves. Therefore, no environmental determination was prepared for this project.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STEVEN F. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I 1TI?.RP. Ry CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of June,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORN'HII I.
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT%67PA93.PC 5/31/94 klb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRP'I~67PA93.PC 5/31/94 kJb
CITY OF TEMECULA
\ TEME(
CASE NO.: Planning Application No. PA93-0067
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE: JUNE 6, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R~\STAFFRPT\67PAS3.PC 5/31/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
1
/
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE:
Planning Application No. PA93-0067
JUNE 6, 1994
ZONING MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~67PA93.PC 5/31/94 klb
ITEM #4
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 6, 1994
Change of Zone No. 26
Prepared By: Craig .D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. 94-__ denying Change of Zone
No. 26 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Drake Kennedy & Brian Kennedy
Change of Zone Request for a 21.4 acre parcel from Residential
Agricultural-20 acre minimum parcel size to Manufacturing
Service Commercial and Open Space
The southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ridge Park
Drive
Residential Agricultural-20 acre minimum parcel size (R-A-20)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC)
Open Space (R-5)
indusirial Park(I-P)
County of Riverside
Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) & Open Space (R-5)
Professional Office
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Light Industrial
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: County of Riverside
R:\STAFFRPT~26CZ,PC 5/31/94 klb
BACKGROUND
The application for Change of Zone No. 26 was submitted to the Planning Department on
August 12, 1992. The applicants were informed that the project was inconsistent with the
City's Draft General Plan. Further, the applicants were informed that staff could not support
the project do to the inconsistency with the Draft General Plan. The applicants then requested
the processing of the application be suspended until the City adopted the General Plan. As
part of the General Ran process, the applicants requested and received a General Plan Land
Use Designation of Professional Office for the subject property. However, the new land use
designation did not rectify the General Plan inconsistency relative to the zone change.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal would change the property's zoning from R-A-20 to MS-C and R-5.
ANALYSIS
The proposed zoning designations are inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Planning staff
has had numerous correspondence, both written and verbal, with the applicants regarding the
General Plan inconsistency. Due to the inconsistency, staff provided the applicants with the
following options:
Modify the application to be consistent with the General Plan to enable staff to
continue processing the application.
Withdraw the application and be entitled to a partial refund of application fees. This
option would delay the immediate development on the site until such time as the City
adopts the official zoning map for the City, The adoption of the zoning map would
change the existing zoning to be consistent with the General Plan.
Proceed with the existing request. Staff would then forward the application to the
Planning Commission with a recommendation of denial without prejudice.
To date, the applicant has failed to respond to staffs' requests.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The site is currently zoned R-A-20. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Professional
Office.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Per Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA does not apply
to projects which a public agency disapproves. Therefore, no environmental determination
was prepared for this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\26CZ.pC 5/31/94 klb 2
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, and the applicant has not responded
to staff's requests to either resolve the inconsistency issue or withdraw the application. The
application has been incomplete for approximately 22 months. Therefore, staff is
recommending the project be denied without prejudice.
FINDINGS
The proposed use or action does not comply with all applicable requirements of state
law and local ordinances. The applicant has failed to submit all required information
in a timely manner in order for the project to be deemed complete in accordance with
State and local law.
The proposed zoning designations are inconsistent with the City's adopted General
Plan. Therefore, staff cannot make the finding that the project is consistent with the
General Plan.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
Exhibits - Blue Page 7
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
R:\STAFFRPT~25CZ.PC 5/31/94 klb 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~26CZ.PC 5/31194 klb
ATTAC'HIVIENT NO. 1
PC R~-~OLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMBSION OF
~ CITY OF ~ DENYING CHANGE OF ZONE
NO. 26 TO CHANGE ~ EXISTING ZONING OF
RESIDENTIAL AGRIC'ULTURAL-20 ACRE MINIMUM
PARCEl. SIZI~. TO MANUFACTURING SERVICE
COMMIERCIAL AND OPEN SPACE ON A 21.4 ACRE
pARCF..L LOCATED ON ~ SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER
OF RANCHO CAI.WORNIA ROAD AND RIDGE PARK
DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARC~.I. NO, 940-
310-014
WI~.~.REAS, Brian Kennedy and Drake Kennedy fried Change of Zone No. 26 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WItEREAS, the Change of Zone application was not processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WttF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered the Change of Zone on June 6, 1994,
at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by hw, at which time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Change of Zone No. 26;
NOW, THF~REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF T!~. CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RF~OLVE, DILl'ERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Change of
Zone, makes the following findings, to wit:
(1) The proposed use or action does not comply with all applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances. The applicant has failed to submit all required
information in a timely manner in order for the project to be deemed complete in accordance
with State and local law.
(2) The proposed zoning designations are inconsistent with the City's adopted
General Plan. Therefore, staff cannot make the Fmding that the project is consistent with the
General Plan.
R:XSTAFFRPT~26CZ.PC 5/31/94 klb 5
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Per Section 15270 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency
disapproves. Therefore, no environmental determination was prepared for this project.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STEVEN F. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I WERRRy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of June,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORN'I-In J,
SECRETARY
R:XSTAFFRPT%26CZ.PC 5/31/94 klb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT%26CZ,PC 5/31/94 kJb
CITY OF TEMECULA
'F
f'
CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 26
EXHIBIT- A
P.C. DATE - JUNE 6, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~26CZ.PC 5/31/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL-20 ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE (R-A-20)
BP
11
BP
EXHIBIT C o GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 26
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 6, 1994 ~
R:\STAFFRPT~26CZ.PC 5/31/94 klb
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 6,1994
Vesting Tenta~ve Tract Map No. 25063 and Change of Zone No. 5598
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
CONTINUE to the July 18, 1994 Planning Commission to allow
staff to re-notice the project.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
David Mulvaney
PROPOSAL:
Subdivide 20 acres into 68 residential lots and one open
space lot and a Change of Zone Request from Rural
Residential 2½ acre minimum parcel size to R-1 (One-
family Dwelling) and R-5 (Open Space).
LOCATION:
South side of Nicolas Road approximately 2000 feet east
of Calle Girasol.
BACKGROUND
When staff mailed the public notice for the project, the change of zone application was not
referenced with the notice. Thus, staff is recommending that the project be continued to the
July 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting to enable staff to meet the public noticing
requirements of State and local laws.
R:%STAFFF~T%25063-1.pC 613/94 vgw ~
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 6, 1994
Planning Application No. PA94-0022
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 4, Paloma Del Sol
Prepared by: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94- recommending
Approval for Planning Application No. 94-0022, Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 4 based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
KRDC, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Turrini and Brink Planning Consultants
PROPOSAL:
A request for approval of an Amendment to Specific Plan No.
219 to adjust the boundary for Planning Areas 1, 6 and 37 and
the acreage for major roads, and to make all the sections of the
Specific Plan consistent with each other by making minor
changes to the graphics and the text of the Specific Plan as a
result of this amendment, This adjustment in acreage will
increase the number of dwelling units in Planning Area 6 from
492 to 590,
LOCATION:
South of Pauba Road, east of Margarita Road, north of State
Highway 79 and west of Butterfield Stage Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan No. 199
County
R-A-2 ~
R-1, R-4-5,000, R-4-6,000, R-5, R-A-2, A-1-10,
C-P-S
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Community Commercial and Low Medium Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:
N/A
EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residential and Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
School, Single Family Residential and Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Single Family Residential and Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
TABLE I
Planning
Area
Numbs' of : Number of
Acreage Acreage Dwelling Dwelling
Approved ::: :Proposed! Units::!:. :~: Units
with : with ~ ! ~lDproved:: :E~: Proposed
Amend. 3 ~: :Amend,~4 :;i: ~ with ~ ;: i! :: ~rth
::Amend. 3: ::Amend. 4
Zoning
1 36.4 31.5 N/A N/A
6 29.8 36.3 492 590
37 8.0 9.5 N/A N/A
Neighborhood
Commercial
(NC)
Multi-Family
(MF)
Park
Major Roads 114.0 110.9 N/A N/A N/A
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 was approved by the City Council on December 8,
1992. This amendment added an 8.0 acre park to Planning Area No. 6 and increased the
target density of that Planning Area from 15.6 dwelling units per acre to 16.5 dwelling units
per acre and limited the total dwelling units of this Planning Area to 492. This amendment
revised the total number of dwelling units to 5,506 along with 53.9 acres of commercial, two
(2) acres for Day Care, 61 acres for schools, 26 acres for parks and recreational centers,
111.3 acres of paseos and 114 acres of Major Roads for a total of 1,391.5 acres.
Subsequently, on January 11, 1994, the City Council entered into an Agreement with KRDC,
Inc. to resolve three related disputes between the City and KRDC, Inc. (refer to Attachments
4 and 5). These disputes included: the City's refusal to accept the park in Planning Area 6
with a ~633,000 Assessment District 159 lien; the City's decision to delay the recordation
of Final Map No. 23135-3; and the discrepancy between the approved boundaries for Planning
Areas 1,6, 37 and the major roads acreage and the actual boundary and acreage of these
areas according to recent surveys.
The Agreement resolved the above disputes as follows:
KRDC, Inc. agreed to apply to Assessment District 159 to redistribute the assessment
and remove it from the park.
KRDC, Inc. agreed that all dedications to the City of park land and open space are to
be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except those accepted by the City.
KRDC, Inc. agreed to apply for an amendment to Specific Plan No. 219 to increase the
maximum number of dwelling units permissible in Planning area 6 to 590 units or 16.5
dwelling units per acre, whichever is less. The City agreed to process this request at
no cost, but made no commitment that the Planning Commission or City Council would
approve the amendment.
4. The City Council agreed to approve Final Map No. 24135-3.
Planning Application No. 94-0022 (Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan) is
a result of the above agreement between the City and KRDC, Inc.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This amendment proposes to adjust the boundaries of Planning Areas 1,6 and 37 and change
the acreage for the major roads. Table 1 delineates the changes in the acreage. As a result,
the Neighborhood Commercial site, Planning Area 1, will be reduced by 4.9 acres; the multi-
family site, Planning Area 6, will increase by 6.8 acres; the park in Planning Area 37 will
increase by 1.5 acres; and, the major roads will decrease by 3.1 acres. The increase in the
multi-family site will increase the maximum number of units to 590, while maintaining the
approved density of 16.5 dwelling units per acre. These adjustments have resulted in other
minor adjustments in the Specific Plan text. These minor adjustments, such as changes to the
acreage and number of units within the text, have not been discussed in the Staff Report but
are included in Attachment 6.
DISCUSSION
The proposed adjustments are minor in nature and are a result of new surveying. The ninety
eight (98) unit increase in Planning Area 6 actually replaces the exact number of units that
were lost as a result of adding the park to this Planning Area with Amendment No. 3.
Therefore, the Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for this Specific Plan
addresses all environmental impacts associated with this increase in the number of dwelling
units.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 235 and its subsequent Addendum
analyzed the significant impacts of Specific Plan No. 219 and proposed mitigation measures
to reduce these impacts. Since this project is proposing seven (7) fewer dwelling units than
the original project for which the EIR was prepared for, the environmental impacts remain the
same and no further environmental analysis is required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
The proposed project is a minor change in the boundaries of Planning Areas 1,6 and 37 and
a change in the acreage for the major roads. The increase in the number of dwelling units in
Planning Area 6 is a direct result of the increase in its acreage and the density remains 16.5
dwelling units per acre. Moreover, staff finds the project in conformance with the Agreement
reached between the City Council and KRDC, Inc.
FINDINGS
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the City's General Plan,
due to the fact that the subject request is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 3.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses of schools and single family
residential since it is separated by wide streets with substantial landscaping to reduce
the visual impacts, Other impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact
that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 3.
The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the
impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 235 and it's subsequent Addendum.
Moreover, the mitigation measures prepared for this EIR will be applied to this project.
The proposed project is consistent with the Agreement reached between the City of
Temecula and KRDC, Inc.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 5
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 12
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning
C. General Plan Land Use Designation
D. Specific Plan No. 219, Land Use Map
E. Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3, Land Use Map
F. Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 4, Land Use Map
City Council Staff Report, Agreement, January 11, 1994 - Blue Page 13
City Council Minutes, January 11, 1994 - Blue Page 14
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 4 - Blue Page 15
R:\STAFFRPT~219SP.PC 6/2/94 rrdb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A'ri'ACH1VIEN'f NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
m
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI:I'E CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMM~NDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 940022, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDM~-NT
NO. 4; AN AMi~NDME~NT TO SPECWIC PLAN NO. 219 TO ADJUST ~
BOUNDARY FOR PLANNING AREAS 1, 6, 37 AND CHANGE ~
ACREAGE FOR MAJOR ROADS, AND TO M~K'~, ~TJ, ~ SECTIONS
OF THY~ SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHI~ BY
MAKING MINOR CHANGES TO ~ GRAPHICS AND TH]~, TEXT OF
THE SPEClYIC PLAN AS A RESULT OF THI~ AMENDlYriCal. THIS
ADJUSTMI~.NT IN ACREAGE WILL INCREASE ~ ~ER OF
DWI~JJJNG UNITS IN PLANNING AREA 6 FROM 492 TO 590. ~
PROJECT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 AND WEST OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD.
WI~REAS, KRDC, Inc. fried Planning Application No. 94-0022, Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 4, in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
W~EREAS, the Planning Commission considered said application on June 6, 1994, at
which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WlqF. REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, TI~. PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the following findings, to wit:
1. Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 4 is consistent with the City 's
General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in substantial conformance with Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3.
2. The pwject is compatible with surrounding land uses of schools and single
family residential since it is separated by wide sU'eets with substantial landscaping to reduce the
visual impacts. Other impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance.
3. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 3.
4. The changes proposed in the appwved Specific Plan are minor and do not
increase the impacts associated with the development, the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 235, and it's subsequent Addendure. Moreover,
the mitigation measures prepared for this EIR will be applied to this pwject.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Agreement reached between
the City of Temecula and K1DC, Inc.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Previously certified Environmental Impact
Report No. 235 and its subsequent Addendure analyzed the significant impacts of Specific Plan
No. 219 and proposed mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. Since this project is
proposing seven {7) fewer dwelling units than the original project for which the FAR was
prepared, no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecuh Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Planning Application No. 94-0022, Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 4, located south of Pauba Road, north of State Highway 79, west of Butterfield Stage Road
and east of Margarita Road subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I Ifl~RERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of June
1994 by the foliowhig vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-rrr J,
SECRETARY
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATFACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA94-0022, Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 4
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Planning Application No. PA94-0022. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify
the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or
hold harmless the City of Temecula.
The applicant shall submit four (4) copies of the final Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 4 to the Planning Department no later than thirty (30) days from the
date of approval by the City Council.
Future developments within the project shall be subject to Planning Application No. 92-
0013 (Development Agreement for Paloma Del Sol) or any other amendments thereto
and the Mitigation Measures adopted for'Environmental Impact Report No. 235.
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 235 in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
No Conditions
OTHER AGENCIES
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Unified
Valley School District transmittal dated May 31, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated May 9, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
District transmittal dated April 5, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:~STAFFRFI~IgSP.I~C 612194 kfo l]
TUUSD FACILITIES ID:909-695-7335 MAY 31'94 8:01No.O03 P.O1
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School Dishid
pal~im e:NmeeW. Ed.D.
May 31, 1994 (ref. Aprg 12, 1994 letter)
Salad Nmeh/Cralg Ruiz
CITY OF TEMECULA
Pbnning Department
43174 Businele Pm*k Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
. SUBJECT: PaloN gel Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 Conditions
Dear Saied end CraiO:
We have reviewed the following requirement with Csaba Ko of Kernper:
· Sidewalks
The proposed residential units are within one-haft male of Sparkman ElemenTary school.
Walkers to the echool most have safe sidewalk and crosswalk protection between the
development and the Elementary school.
According to Mr. Ko, this requirement will be achieved through sidewalks in Tract 24136-2 end -
3, which will Connect De Portola Road and the south school property line, and sidewalke from the
multi-family area to De Potrole. His expectation is That 24136-2 and -3 development will precede
the multi-family development.
ff you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340.
Sincerely,
TEMECU A UNIFIED SCHOOL DI:~i HiCT
Director of Facelilies Development
CO:
Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent
John Brooks, Assistant Superintendenl Business Services
Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst
Csaba Ko, KCDC, Inc.
31350 Rancho vma Ro~d /Temec~jte, CA 92592. I (909) 676-2661
Eastern Municipal Water District
Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
May9,1994
RECEI":D
l-lAY 121S z
lns'd .... )
SUBJECT: Palores Del Sol - Planning Application No. PA94-0022, Specific Plan
Amendment No. 4 for Specific Plan No. 219
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office describing the addition of 6.5
acres of very high density residential to Planning Area (PA) 6, the addition of 1.5 acres of
parkland to PA 37, reduce 4.9 acres of commercial land from PA 1, and reduce major
roads by 3.1 acres. As shown on the transmittal's accompanying map, the subject project
is located east of Margarita Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Hwy 79 South,
and south of Pauba Road.
It must be understood, the available capacities of the District's sanitary sewer systern is
continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and
programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of sanitary sewer service will
be based on the timing of the subject project development, the status of the District's
permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer.
The District encourages the beneficial use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and
other uses in accordance with Title 22 of the California Administrative Code and Eastern
Municipal Water District Ordinance No. 68. The design of irrigation systems for subject
project landscaped areas must consider the District's water budget criteria and landscape
irrigation guidelines. Water budget and landscape irrigation guidelines may be obtained
from the District's Customer Service Depattment.
The developer must submit information whic~,:describes the subject project's irrigation
water/potential reclaimed water demand to the District's Customer Service Depattment
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300~ · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemer, CA
Saied Nna~eh
PA 94-0022
May 9, 1994
Page 2
for review. At the time of the District's review, a District determination will be made
regarding requirements for reclaimed water use and/or reclaimed water system
improvements.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this
office at (909) 766-1810, extension 467.
Very truly yours,
EASTEI'u'q MUNICIPAL WATER DISTPdCF
Warren A. Back
Associate Engineer II
Customer Service Depat h~ent
WAB/
AB 94.340
J :\WORD PROC\WP\NEW_BUSL 11\WABXDELSOLACT
Doug Kulherg
Jeffrey L. Minklet
Ralph H. Daily
Nancy K. Hughes
Csaba F. Ko
Lisa D, Peterson
Richard D Steffey
April 5, 1994
RECEIVED
APR O 6 159
Mr. Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
Water Availability; APN 950-020-001, 950-020-002, 950-020-003,
950-020.009; PA94-0022 Specffic Plan Amendment No. 4
for Specific Plan No. 219, Paloma del Sol
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SD:eb30/F186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
Rancho California Water District
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:~STAFFRF~219SP.PC 6/2194
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
PE:AHNI?~I~/~ACOMMISSION DATE - JUNE 6, 1994
CASE NO. - PA94-0022, SPECIFIC PLAN 219, AMEND. 4 (PALOMA DEL SOL)
VICINITy MAP
R:~STAFFRFT~219SP'PC 5/26/94
CITy OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.. PA94-O0
EXHIBIT. B 22, SPECIFIC PLAN 219
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE. dUNE 6, 19~:MEND* 4 (PALOMA DEL SOLI
ZONING MAp
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA94-0022, SPECIFIC PLAN 219, AMEND. 4 (PALOMA DEL SOL)
EXHIBIT-C GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 6, 1994
R:~STAFFRP'l'~219$P,PC 5/26/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN
RESIDENTIAL
MEI~LIM 574 {2-5) 4.35 2499
MSD4UM-HIG~ 402 (5-8) 5,52210
VERY HIGH 34 (14-20) 17 578
SUBTOTAL RESIDENTIAL 1036 5.4 5611
C, Ce, RMUNrTY/NEGHBORHO~O
CASE NO. - PA94-0022, SPECIFIC PLAN 219, AMEND. 4 (PALOMA DEL SOL)
EXHIBIT-D SPECIFIC PLAN 219, LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 6, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT~219SP.PC 5/26/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT #3
BAY CARE CENTER 2
ELEMENTARy SCHOOL 41
CASE NO. - PA94-0022, SPECIFIC PLAN 219, AMEND. 4 (PALOMA DEL SOL)
EXHIBIT - E SPECIFIC PLAN 219, AMEND. 3 LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 6, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT~219SP.PC 5/26/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT #4
536 12-51 4,5 2338
437.5 15'81 5.5 2356
CASE NO. - PA94-0022, SPECIFIC PLAN 219, AMEND. 4 (PALOMA DEL SOL)
EXHIBIT-F SPECIFIC PLAN 219, AMEND. 4 LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 6, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT~219SP.PC 5/26/94 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 11, 1994
APPROVAL '.
CITY ATTORNEYZ.~
FINANCE OFFICE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Attorney/City Manager
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
January 11, 1994
Paloma del Sol: Agreement Between KDRC, Inc. and City Regarding
Acceptance of Park, Approval of Final Tract Map No. 24135-3 and
Modification of Target Density for Banning Area 6
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Agreement between Kemper
Real Estate Development Company and the City of Temecula regarding Paloma del Sol.
DISCUSSION: The proposed Agreement is intended to resolve three related disputes
between the City and Kemper regarding Paloms del Sol.
First, the Development Agreement for Paloma del Sol provides for the dedication and
improvement of parks, paseos and open space to the City in lieu of parkland dedication
pursuant to the City's Quimby Ordinance. In particular, the Development Agreement
provided for the dedication and improvement of an 8 acre Park to the City at the
intersection of Campanula and De Portola Ways. (During the final design phase of the
Park, its size increased to 9.5 acres). The Park is now complete and ready for acceptance.
However, Staff has delayed acceptance of the Park until an Assessment District 159 lien
of $633,000 is removed from the property. Kemper has taken the position that the City
should accept the Park subject to the lien.
Second, Kemper applied to the City for final map approval of Tract Map No. 24135-3,
located within Palores del Sol. The Council continued this matter off calendar pending
resolution of Paloma del Sol Park dispute. Kemper contends this action violates the
Subdivision Map Act.
Third, the Park is located in what was previously Planning Area 6 of the Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan. Originally, PA-6 comprised 37.8 acres of land and had target density of 590
units or 15 dwelling units per acre. In December 8, 1992 when the Park was added, PA-6
was reduced to 29.8 acres, and the Park was added as PA-37. The target density for PA-
AGENDA REPORT - Paloma Del Sol Agreement
January 11, 1994
Page 2
6 was also reduced to 492 units, which resulted in a maximum density of 16.5 dwelling
units per acre.
In the course of researching the Assessment District lien issue, it was discovered that PA-
6 actually comprises of 37.9 acres. Given this fact, City Staff and Kemper representatives
have met and reached a resolution of these three disputes through the attached
Agreement. Briefly, the terms of the Agreement are as follows:
Kemper agrees to apply to Assessment District 159 to raspread the
assessment and remove the lien from the Park.
Kemper agrees that all dedications to the City of park land and open space
are to be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except those
accepted by the City.
Kernper will apply for an amendment to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan to
adjust the target density for PA-6 to reflect the newly found acreage. The
City will process the amendment at no cost. The Specific Plan Amendment
will adjust the maximum density for PA-6 to 590 units or 16.5 dwelling units
per acre, whichever is less. While City Staff will process a Specific Plan
amendment, there is no commitment that either the Planning Commission or
the City Council will approve the Amendment.
The City Council will approve Final Map No. 24135-3. Kemper shall waive
any claims it may have concerning the City's initial decision not to approve
the Final Map.
FISCAI~ IMPACT: The Agreement relieves the City of any responsibility to assume the
$633,000 Assessment District 159 lien in connection with acceptance of the Park. The
cost of processing the Specific Plan Amendment is estimated to be $4,496.50.
ATTACHMENTS:
Agreement between Kemper and the City regarding Paloma del Sol.
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment Map No. 3, approved December 8,
1992.
Paloma del Sol Specific Ran, Amendment Map No. 2, approved March 26,
1992.
AI'I'ACHMENT NO. 5
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 1994
City Council Minutes January 11. 1994
COUNCIL BUSINESS
22
Paloma del Sol - Aereement Between KRDC. Inc. and City Reaardina Acceotance of
Park. AoDroval of Final Tract MaD NO. 24135-3 and Modification of Taraet Density for
Plannine Area 6
City Attorney Field presented the staff report.
Councilmember Birdsall asked for an explanation of the confusion on the acreage of
the site. City Attorney Field answered that 36.3 acres is the correct figure, however
the acreage is not a controlling factor. He explained that the amendment Will be
processed to provide for 590 target units.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked if 16.5 max density is a limitation in addition to the 590
units or could there be additional units. City Attorney Field explained that the
agreement reads whichever is lower.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked that the language be amended to make this more clear.
Dennis O'Neil, representing Kernper, stated that there is no intention to exceed the
590 unit cap, regardless of the acreage.
City Attorney Field read the following change:
City shall process, at no cost or fees to be paid by Owner, an amendment to
the Specific Plan to increase the maximum number of dwelling units permissible
in Planning Area 6 of the Specific Plan to 590 dwelling units or 16.5 dwelling
units per acre, whichever is less.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
approve staff recommendation as amended:
22.1
Approve the Agreement between Kernper Real Estate Development
Company and the City of Temecula regarding Paloma del Sol.
The motion was unanimously carried.
RECESS
Mayor Roberts called a recess at 8:24 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the
previously scheduled Community Services District and Redevelopment Agency Meetings at
9:01 PM.
Mi nutes%011194 -8- 0113 1/94
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219,
AMENDMENT NO. 4
Screencheck S.P. Amendment No. ~ 4 Submitted: July 2{). 10092 March 14. 1994
Draft S.P. Amendment No. 3 4 Submitted: 8/7/02: 10/12/02: 10/28/02:5/6/94
Final S.P. Amendment No. 8 4 Approved by Planning Commission: November 16. 1992
Final S.P. Amendment No. ~} 4 Approved by City Council: Dc~mbcr 8. 100092
PALOMA DEL SOL
For,..erly The Meadows at Rancho California
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 4
EIR No. 235
Developed by:
KRDC, INC.
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202
Temecula, California 92390
(714 909) 676-7290
Contact: Csaba Ko
Prepared by:
T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
3242 Halladay, Suite 100
Santa Aria, California 92705
(714) 662-2774
Contact: Barry Bumell
In Association with:
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates - Civil Engineers
Ballew & Associates, Inc. - Plann'mg/Architecture
HRP L. nF)esign - Pl.nnlng, Landscape Architecture
Land Concern, Landscape Architecture
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. - Geotechnical
Douglas Wood & Associates - Environmental Analysis
Wilbur Smith Associates - Traffic Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Temecula
Contact PJanner: Debbie ~Ubnoske, (7!'. 909) 694-6400
Saied Naaseh
Deccmbcr 8, 1992 February 1, 1994
m SUMMARY OF CHANGES
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO PALOMA DEL SOL (Meadows) Specific Plan
The PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 4 idabeing filed pursuant tbI City
C0~mcil appr,q~l/~f=~li~I'~'~'~/~b}it~ Re~dkl~/~Pd6~ *:a41!~ Soi" on January li~ 1994L
contains scvcrd chomgcs to thc Mcudows Spccific P1D_n Arncndmcnt No. 2 that was
adopted by thc City of Tcmccula Ci~- Council in May of 1092. Thc changc~ arc thc
addition of 8,0 Am~ndment:.Np.~addS.~L~.5 acres of ncighborhood park at thc southcant
corncr of Dc Portola Road and "H" Strcct. In addition, minor changcs havc occurrcd
throughout the document to clarify the intent of the Specific Plan conci~tcnt with the
Amended and Restated MOU bct~vccn Bcdfcrd Development Company, Mc~a Homes and
the City of Tcmccula and the approvcd Vesting Tentative Tract Maps. vd~high~'d~nSity
residential w Manning Area,.6,. adds 1.5 acres o{ park to Manning Ard~=37~:!reduces
commundty/neighborhood commercial area in Planning Area ] bF 4.9 acres and reduces
major roads by 3.1 acTes. The revised acreages are based on recent de~aile~enginedi~g
to est~,blish thd surrounding roadway alignments L~ copjuuction with~deSign~and
constn~ctkm of the neighborhood park in Plannldg A~oa 37. The act,age and dwelling
unit comparisons are illustrated below.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TABLE
Meadows S.P, No. 219
Amendment No. 3
Meadows S.P. No. 219
Amendment No. ~ 4
Land Use
Medium
Medium High
Very High
Commercial
Neighborhood
Commercial
Day Care
Middle School
Elementary School
Parks or
Recreation Center
Paseos
Major Roads
Acres Dwelling Land Use Acres
Units
536,0 2,338 Medium 536.0
437,5 2,356 Medium-High 437.5
49.8 812 Very High 57.3
~6.3
36.4 Commercial 36.~
31.5
Neighborhood 17.5
17.5 Commercial
2.0 Day Care 2.0
20.0 Middle School 20.0
41.0 Elementary School 41.0
Parks or 15.4
26.0 Recreation Center 27.5
Paseos ~ ~ o ~
111.3 111.3
114.0 Major Roads 114.0
{10.9
Dwelling
Units
2,338
2,356
910
PROJECT TOTAL
1,391.5 5,506 PROJECT TOTAL' 1,391.5
5,604
PALOMA DEL SOL I. SUM~LA_RY OF CHANGES
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. 4} ~ Page I-1
DETAILED SUMMARY OF CHANGES TABLE
Meadows S.P. No. 219, Amendment No. 3
Meadows S.P. No. 219, Amendment No. 4
ph. nn~l'ng
Land Use Area Acres ing
Units
Land Use pJnn,i,g Acres Dwelling.
Area Units
Commercial 1 36.4
- Commercial i 31.5
Very High 2 20.0
320 Very High 2 20.0 320
Medilnn
3 48.0
High
Medium
255 3 48.0 255
High
Medium 4 40.0
188 Medium 4 40.0 188
Medium
5 35.5
~ngh
Medium
155 5 35.5 155
High
Very High 6 29.8
492 Very High 6 36.3 590
Elementary 7 11.0
Scho~
Elementary 7 11.0
School
Medium 8 89.0
400 Medium
8 89.0 400
Medium 9 44.0
198 Medium
9 44.0 198
Medium 10 78.0
351 Medium
10 78.0 351
Elementary 11 10,0
School
Elementary 11 10.0
School
Park
12 7.4
Rec. Area
Park
12 7.4
Rec. Area
Medium
13 32.0
High
Medium
176 13 32.0 176
High
Medium
14 49.0
High
Medium
15 17.0
High
Medium
269 14 49.0 269
High
:
Medium
93 15 17.0 93
High
Medium
16 49.2
High
Medium
271 16 49.2 271
High
Medium 17 73.0
325 Medium 17 73.0 325
PALOMA DEL SOL ~ I. SUMMARY OF CHANGES
SPEC~F~ PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. 3 4 Page 1-2
DETAILED SUMMARY OF CHANGES TABLE
(continued)
Meadows S.P. No. 219, Amendment No~ 3
Meadows S.P. No. 219, Amendment No. 4
Land Use Planning Acres Dwellin~ Plgnninoe Dwe]Jil~g
Area Units Land Ue Area Acres Units
Medium 17 73.0
Medium 18 32.0
Recreation
19 7.7
Area/Park
325 Medium
146 Medium
Recreation
Areaf park
17 73.0 325
18 32.0 146
19 7.7
Medium
20 40.0
High
Medium
21 36.8
High
Medium
22 64.0
High
Medium
23 66.0
High
Park 24 2.9
Medium 25 16.0
Medium 26 30.0
Commercial 27 15.0
Medium 28 30.0
Elementary 29 10.0
School
Medium
220
High
20 40.0 220
Medium
202 21 36.8 202
High
Medium
352 22 64.0 352
High
Medium
363 23 66.0 363
High
-- Park 24 2.9 --
67 Medium 25 16.0 67
149 Medium 26 30.0 149
-- Commercial 27 15.0 --
135 Medium 28 30.0 135
.. Elementary 29 10.0 --
School
Jr. High 30 20.0 '-
School
Medium 31 67.0 214
Jr. High
School
Medium
30 20.0 --
31 67.0 214
PALOMA DEL SOL I. SUMMARY OF CHANGE3
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~'4 Page 1-3
DETAILED SUMMARY OF CHANGES TABLE
(continued)
Meadows S.P. No. 219, Amendmpnt No. 3
Meadows S.P. No. 219, Amendment No. 4
Land Use
Plamah~ AcrH DWeHIn~
Arta ~nits
Trend U~e
Planning Acres Dwelling
Area Units
32 10.0
Elementary
School
32 10.0
Medium 33 37.0 165 Medium
33 37.0 165
Day Care 34 2.0 -- Day Care 34 2.0
Greenbelt
35 28.0
Gre~nbek
Paseos
35 28.0
Commercial 36 2.5 -- Commercial 36 2.5
Park 37 8.0 -- Park
37 9.5
Roadway
Paseos
Roadway
83.3 --
Paseos
83.3
Major
Streets
Major
114.0
Streets
110.9
PROJECT TOTALS
1,391.5 5,506 PROJECT TOTALS
1,391.5 5,604
PALOMA DEL SOL I. SUMMARY OF CHANGES
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMBNDMENT NO. ~ 4 Page 1-4
SUMMARY
A. PROJECT SUMMARY
1. Project Location and Local Land Uses
The PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan project site is comprised of 1391.5 acres in the City
of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County. (See Figure 1, Regional mMap and Figure
2A, Vicinity Map). The site is bounded by Pauba Road on the north, State Highway 79
on the south, Butterfield Stage Road to the east, and Margarita Road to the west.
Existing land uses in the project area include residential, open space, agricultural and
public/quasi-public.
a. Existing On-site Land Uses and Zoning Designations
The project site is characterized by rolling terrain. Several washes, beginning on-site, are
evident in the north-central portion of the site. Those washes meander through the site,
draining the site to the southwest and south. The existing zoning of the site is SP
(Specific Plan).
Significant portions of the site have previously been used for dry farming agricultural
purposes. Those areas include the north-central/northwest, and southeast and southwest
portions of the site. The southern portion of the site, adjacent to State Highway 79 is
temporarily developed with effluent holding/percolation ponds of the Eastern Municipal
Water District. The remainder of the site exists in a generally natural state, with the
exception that some cattle grazing activity has occurred.
b. Surrounding Land Uses
As shown on Figures 2A and 2B, the site is surrounded predominantly by existing and
proposed single f3mily land uses, agricultural land uses, the Temecula Valley High
School and the Linfield Christian High School. Land north of the eastern portion of the
site is vacant but has been farmed. Properties northeast of the site are developed with
several single family residences on large lots. Land to the east of all but the extreme
southern portion of the site is vacant, however, a single family subdivision is proposed
to be developed on that land. Property east of the extreme southern portion of the site,
and south of the site is being dry farmed. Land to the west of the site is being developed
with "estate lot" single family homes. Property northwest of the site is being developed
with the Rancho California Sports Park.
2. Proiect Descrintion
The PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan project combines residential, commercial, schools, e
neighborhood parks Ddaycare centor, greenbelt/paseos and an extensive circulation
network, within a comprehensive plan. The land use designation and residential densities
for the PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan have been blended to reflect a mixed use concept
PALOMA DEL SOL II. SUMMARY
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. 8 4 Page II-1
responding to the changing urbani~,ing character of the Rancho California area. The
Specific Plan is designed to consider access ]inlcg, compatible land use transitions with
neighboring properties, views, and landform relationships.
A total of 5,_,"9~ 5,604 dwelling nnlts are proposed on 1,92~.~° 1,029.8 acres throughout
the site. As indicated on Figure 3, Specific Land Use Plan (including Table I, Detailed
Land Use S~mmary), 2,338 d.u. of medium on 536 acres; 2,356 d.u. of medium-high
density use on 437.5 acres; and very-high density ,,nits totallug 212 910 ,,nits on 44~8
56.3 acres.
In addition, the following land uses are proposed: Commnnlty/Neighborhood Commercial
(36.~. 31.5 AC); Neighborhood Commercial (17.5 AC); Four Elementary Schools (41 AC);
One Junior High School (20 AC); T'::c, One Neighborhood Park/Recreation Areas (15.17.7
AC); T'::~, Three Neighborhood Parks (10.9 19.8 AC); and a Daycare Center (2 AC).
3. Market Objectives
This project is proposed for development based on extensive buyer profile studies which
were conducted for the project. The studies provide data regarding: Location features
which influence people in their choice of where to live; house features considered
important; features keeping people from buying a home; and groupings of features. A
number of housing products are being designed at this time with features desired by
home purchasers who would be identified as the target market for the project. Examples
may be viewed in the Design Guidelines Section of this report (Section IV). It is thought
that this research will permit the close targeting ofhomebuyers likely to move to PALOMA
DEL SOL and this portion of Riverside County. In addition, a number of house sizes, and
neighborhood types (i.e. cluster, courtyard, conventional single family) will be offered to
provide maximum variety and price range.
It is the intent of the PALOMA DEL SOL Specific Plan to be nni~ed in overall theme but
varied in individual character to provide complimentary land uses. Additional specific
market objectives .are:
To provide affordable, moderately priced single family detached homes. A market
forecast states that it is expected that the supply of expensive single family homes
will begin to grow faster than demand, and that homes in moderate price ranges
should be more market able.
To provide a housing product with larger and fewer rooms all else being equal.
Market study shows that general product features associated with faster sales
rates are a preference for larger and fewer rooms all else being equal. More
bathroom facilities also appear to be associated with better sales.
To provide land uses that extend and are consistent with ongoing development
along Highway 79 and in the urban core developing in the Murrieta Hot Springs-
Rancho California area.
PALOMA DEL SOL II. SUMMARY
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. 8 4 Page II-5
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY (5-8 DU/AC) will be located in Planning Areas
3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, and 23. A total of 2,356 homes are to be
constructed within this category of land use on a total of 437.5 acres,
which is generally targeted to first-time buyers. The minimum lot size
is 4,000 square feet. The medium density residential land use is "as a
rule" located in the central portion of the site. This use also touches
the southern boundary of the site adjacent to Highway 79.
VERY HIGH DENSITY housing is proposed for Planning Areas 2 and 6
which contain 4e~8 ~6.3 acres. A total of 812 910 dwellings will be
constructed at a density of 14-20 dwellings per acre. These Planning
Areas may include condominiums and apartments, which will be
targeted for first-time home buyers and possibly the rental market.
Where Medi,,m~ Medium-High, and Very High density housing types
are planned, private recreation facilities and common open space will
be provided to supplement community open space uses. Private
recreational areas may include facilities such as pool, spa, and/or
barbecue areas. Exact design and layout of these facilities will be
accomplished in conjunction with detailed future tract layouts.
COMMERCIAL - The community will be served by three commercial sites
totalling ~9 49.0 acres. The commercial uses proposed will be Neighborhood
and Community/Neighborhood uses primarily for residents and persons
employed on-site. The commercial sites are located in Planning Areas 1, 36,
and 27. All three sites will have a community orientation while Planning
Area I will also be easily visible and accessible from Highway 79 and will
therefore contain some highway-related commercial uses. For a list of
permitted uses, see Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance.
GREENBELT/PASEOS, ROADWAY/PASEOS, SLOPES - A significant
portion (111.3 acres) of the project site is being designed as greenbelt/paseos,
roadway paseos and slopes. These paseos serve several functions and act to
"tie" the communi~y's neighborhoods to each other while providing alterna-
tive modes of travel (pedeStrian, bicycle, etc.) to major destination points
(schools, and com, mercial facilities, and recreation facilities) within the
community. The paseos generally follow drainage courses and wi~ll in most
cases continue to function in a drainage capacity; however, the majority of
off-site and on-site water now carried in the central east/west drainage
channel will be carried through an underground system of pipes. Additionally
at broader locations within the paseos, recreational facilities may be planned.
All roadways shown on the Specific Plan will also have greenbelt/paseos
(parkways) expanded from the standard right-of-way. The greenbelt/paseo
system is expected to provide a major aesthetic and unifying amenity for the
entire project.
PALOMA DEL SOL IlL SPECIFIC PlAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~ 4 Page III-4
SCHOOLS - A total of 61 acres will be allocated for school sites. Four
elementary school sites are planned, COntaining a total of 41 acres. One
elementary school site is located in the southwestern quadrant of the site
adjacent to Margarita Road. One additional school site is located within each .
of the remaining three quadrants of the site. A 20-acre Jnnlor High School
site is located in the northern portion of the site, adjacent to Meadows
Parkway. Elementary schools are proposed in Planning Areas 7, 11, 29, 32.
The Jnnlor High School is proposed in P]annlng Area 30.
RECREATION AREAS/PARKS - T':.:z A neighborhood park/recreation areas
(P]annlng Arean 12 arid 19) arc is planned to serve residents of the communi-
ty. Also, ~:~ ~hree neighborhood parks are plAnn.ed (Plsnnln~ Areas 12, 24
and 37). In addition, further recreational opportnnlties will occur in the
Medium, Medjnra-High, and Very High density residential areas. For a full
discussion of proposed recreational opportnnlties please see Sec. III.A.7. and
Section IV., Design Guidelines, of this Specific Plan.
ROADS - Major roadways totsHing 114 110.9 acres will be implemented in
conjunction with the proposed project. The Riverside County Master Plan of
Streets and Highways will adequately serve future traffic volumes for the
region. On-site traffic will be handled by a hierarchical roadway system
consisting of Arterial, Major, Secondary, Collector and Local readways.
Looping Collector roadways will generally carry interior traffic to higher
traffic carrying Major and Arterial roadways. (See Figure 4) In addition
Class II bicycle trails will be striped along most roadways throughout the site
(Figure 6).
b. Land Use Development Standards
Three levels of development standards and guidelines have been established that, when
combined, ensure an orderly, sensitive methodology for implementation and development
of the permitted uses established for The PALOMA DEL SOL by the Zoning Standards set
forth in Sec. III.C.
At one level, special techniques and mitigations have been designed for application, as
appropriate, to each Planning Area. These specific standards are discussed at length in
Sec. III.B. of this Specific Plan and will be employed to insure high development quality
consistency and provide provisions for proper transition between the varying land uses
and product intensity.
A second level encompasses design techniques relative to architectural, landscape and
community-wide development guidelines. These measures are discussed extensively in
the Design Guidelines, Sec. IV. of this Specffic Plan.
PALOMA DEL SOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/A~MENDMENT NO. 3 4 Page III-5
At a third, broader level, general project-wide provisions have been established. These
standards, which will work in cooralnation with the plmnnlng Area Standards and Design
Guidelines to insure overall project sensitivity are:
1)
This Specific Plan shall be developed with a maximum of 5,595 5,604 dwelling
.nits within a total 1,391.5 acre area in the msnner illustrated on the Specific
Land Use Plan (Figure 3). Generally, the uses permitted shall include residential,
neighborhood and comm. nlty/neighborhood commercial, recreation, schools, open
space, and circulation. These uses are more appropriately delineated in the
Planning Area Concepts (Figures 15A-15KK).
2)
Uses and development standards will be in accordance with the zoning regulations
established by this Specific Plan and detailed in the Planning Area Development
Standards, Sec. III.B., and'will be defined by Specific Plan objectives, future
detailed plot plans and potential conditional use permits as appropriate.
3)
Standards relating to signage, landscaping, parlclng and other related design
elements will conform to the zoning regulations also as set forth in Sec. III.B. and
the Design Guidelines, Sec. IV. When appropriate and necessary to meet the goals
of this Specific Plan, the standards will exceed the zoning requirements provided
herein.
4)
The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory
requirements of all City ofTemecuia Oralnances or as amended by this Ordinance
and State laws. It also shall conform substantially with this approved Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 3 4, as filed in the Office of the City of Temecula
Planning Department, unless otherwise amended.
5)
Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the City of Temecula
Planning Department verifying that all pert'ment conditions of Specific Plan
approval have been satisfied for the ~hase of development in question.
6)
Any potential public open space/recreation areas on the site will be developed per
appropriate zoning requirements and operated to maintain public access to
recreation facilities. ~
7)
Design features such as special architectural treatment, perimeter and interior
landscaping and buffering of parking lot/loading zone areas will be incorporated
into project design to minimize any potential conflict between higher intensity
commercial uses and any abutting residential enclaves. (Please see the Design
Guidelines, Sec. IV.)
8)
An environmental assessment shall be conducted for each tract, change of zone,
plot plan, specific plan amendment or any other discretionary pe~'xnit required to
implement the specific plan. At a minimum, the environmental assessment shall
PALOMA DEL SOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECIFIC PlAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~ 4 Page III-6
Designation
RESIDENTIAL
Table 1
DETAILED LAND USE SUMMARY
planning Density Target
Area Acreage Range Density
(du/ac) (du/ac)
4
8
9
10
17
Medium 18
25
26
28
31
33
Medium Subtotal
3
5
13
14
Medium High 15
16
20
21
22
23
Medi-m High Subtotal
6
Very High 2
Very High Subtotal
RESmENTRL TOTALS
40.0 2-5 4.5
89.0 2-5 4.5
44.0 2-5 4.5
78.0 2-5 4.5
73.0 2°5 4.5
32.0 2-5 4.5
16.0 2-5 4.5
30.0 2-5 4.5
30.0 2-5 4.5
67.0 2-5 3.5
37.0 2-5 4.5
536.0 2-5 4.5
48.0 5-8 5.5
35.5 5-8 5.5
32.0 5-8 5.5
49.0 5-8 5.5
17.0 5-8 5.5
49.2 5-8 5.5
40.0 5-8 5.5
36.8 5-8 5.5
64.0 5-8 5.5
66.0 5-8 5.5
437.5 5-8 5.5
2~.~ 36.3 14-20 16.5
20.0 14-20 16.0
44h8 56.3 14-20 t4~r2 16.2
· n~o o 5°4
1,029.8
COMMERCIAL AND OTH e: R USES
Commercial 1,27,36 5~°.~ 49.0
Daycare Center 34 2.0
Junior High 30 20.0
Elementary Schools 7,11,29,32 41.0
Park and/or Rec. Areas 12,19,24,37 ~ 27.5
Greenbelt Paseos 35 28.0
Roadway Paseos -- 83.3
Major Streets -- 11'..~ 110.9
PROJECT TOTALS 1,391.5
Dwelling
(du)
188
400
198
351
325
146
67
149
135
214
165
2~38
255
155
176
269
93
271
220
202
352
363
2~56
492 590
320
910
~$96 5,604
5,604
PALOMA DEL SOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~ 4 Page III-9
Table 2
PUBLIC FACILITIES PHASING
plnnnln_~ Public Facility Size
Area of Sits
Milestone and Requirements
12 Neighborhood Park/ 7.4 AC
Rc, c~cation Area
19 Neighborhood Park/ 7.7 AC
Recreation Area
24 Neighborhood Park 2.9 AC
37
Neighborhood Park ~.O 9.5
AC
35 GreenbeltfPaseo System --
N/A Equestrian Trail --
7 Elementary School 11.0 AC
11
29
32
3O
Elementary School 10.0 AC
Elementary School 10.0 AC
Elementary School 10.0 AC
Junior High School 20.0 AC
To be completed during Phase IV, prior
to the issuance of the 4,576th building
permit.
To be 1/2 completed during Phase I,
prior to the issuance of the 1,000th
building permit. To be completed prior
to the issuance of the 2,500th building
permit.
To be completed during Phase I'V, prior
to the issuance of the 4,576th building
permit and in conjunction with devel-
opment of planning Areas 23 and 24.
To be completed during Phase II, prior
to the issuance of the 1,971st building
permit.
To be completed concurrently with
adjacent development.
To be completed concurrently with
development of Planning Areas 8, 9,
10, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33 and 34.
To be constructed by the School Dis-
trict in accordance to their pupil de-
mand and funding capabilities.
To be constructed by the School Dis-
trict in accordance to their pupil de-
mand and funding capabilities.
To be constructed by the School Dis-
trict in accordance to their pupil de-
mand and fund'rag capabilities.
To be constructed by the School Dis-
trict in accordance to their pupil de-
mand and funding capabilities.
To be constructed by the School Dis-
trict in accordance to their pupil de-
mand and funding capabilities.
Note: Timing of improvements may be modified t/~ough a development agreement.
PALOMADELSOL III. SPECIFIC PlAN
SPECWlC PLAN NO. 219/A3~NDMENT NO. ~ 4 Page III-23
gatherings; participate in active outdoor informal recreational activities; and participate
in potentially structured professionally organized and instructed courses and sporting
events which could occur at one of the four park/recreation centers. In fact, the proposed
program is significant in that 250.2 251.7 acres of land will be devoted to park,
recreational, open space, parkway and paseo uses which is equivalent to 16.0 acres per
1,000 residents.
The various recreational facilities are llnked to each other and the other elements of the
comm,mlty with an extensive parkway and paseo trail system. The "heart" of the system
is the "Backbone Community Paseo System". That system is augmented by neighborhood
open space corridors and a parkway system adjacent to all collector and higher volume
roadways. The parkway and paseo system will be landscaped as shown in the Design
Guidelines (Section IV) and will at a mlnlrnunl contain one or more sidewalks. Bicycle
trails (Class II) will be provided as shown on Figure 6. The overall Recreation and Open
Space concept is depicted in Figure 12. The elements and acreage of the Program are
provided in Table 3. The various elements of the Program are discussed below.
1)
Community Recreational Opportunities. Community recreational opportnn~ties are
those opportunities which are available for the use and enjoyment of members of
the PALOMA DEL SOL community. They are segmented and discussed as follows:
Neighborhood Parks/Recreational Areas
Schools
Equestrian Trail
Activity Nodes
Rancho Califoruia Sports Park
a)
Neighborhood Parks. 2~:,:~ Three neighborhood parks (Plantring Areas 12, 24
and 37) totalling i~.~ 19.8 acres are provided. The parks are located in the
east/central and southwest portions of the site. The parks will be landscaped
and may include such uses as: picnic areas, tot lots, exercise course,
playfield, basketball (half-Court'), sand volleyball court, group barbecue, soccer
fields, baseball fields and a shade arbor. Public parks will be owned and
maintained by the Temecula Commnnlty Services District (TCSD).
b)
Neighborhood Park/Recreational Areas. Tr.:~ A 7.7-acre neighborhood
park/recreation centero tot~lllng 15.1 acres arc is provided. One of the
centcro is located in the northwestern part of the site and centuinn 7.7 acrcn.
The other ccntcr containo 7.4 acrco and io located in thc oouthcaotcrn portion
^~ ~k ^ .:~^ Th~cis centere could provide facilities for ity meetings
........... COnl~Sun ~
workshops, social events and active participation recreational activities. ~I~cy
This facility will function in at least the same, if not expanded capacity, as
a fully developed public parks and could be constructed as a public parks.
Each park or The park/recreation center may contain a community building
and may include the following representative facilities:
PALOMA DEL SOL H]. SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECWtC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMFe~T NO. ~ 4 Page nq-27
A.
B.
C.
Table 3
RECREATION/OPEN SPACE PROGRAM
CO]V!IVIU~ITf RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
.Acreage
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood Park/Recreational Areas
School Recreation Facilities
1. Elementary Schools (5 AC each x 4 schools)
2. Junior High School
3. Temecula Valley High School
Rancho California Sports Park
· ~n 198
15.17.7
20 est.
12 est.
25 est.
(No acreage added
for this facility)
Equestrian Trail (adjacent to Pauba and de Portola Reads) 4.0
Activity Nodes within the Community "Backbone" Paseo Sys- 2.2
tern - calculated at the rate of I acre per 6,500 persons
TOTAL [ ~ 90,7
PRIVATE ACIIVE PARTICIPATION OPPORTLTNiTs~:S
To be provided in each Medium-High and Very-High Density pJAnnlug Area by the
developer of that particular pJAnnlng area - calculated at the rate of one acre per 500
persons.
A. Medium-High Density
B. Very-High Density
11.3
3.0
TOTAL 14.3
IlL OPEN SPACE, GREENBELT/PASEOS AND PARKWAY PASEOS
A. Open Space Corridors by Residential Density
To be provided in each Medium and Medium-High Density
Planning Area by the developer of that particular p]snning
area - calculated at a rate of one acre per 250 persons.
Medium (except for Planning Areas 1, 25 and 26 for
which no provision for open space, greenbelts/paseos or
parkway paseos will be made because of the 7,200
square foot minimum lot size.)
Medium-High 22.6 minus 11.3 acres for active participa-
tion opportunities.
23.0
11.3
PALOMA DEL SOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN
SPeCIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~. 4 Page III-29
Table 3
RECREATION/OPEN SPACE PROGRAM
(continued)
Community "Backbone" Paseo System (28 minus 2.2 acres for
activity nodes)
Roadway Paseos
1. Medium Density Residential
2. Medium High (Clusters)
3. Very High (Apartments)
TOTAL
OVERALL RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE
OPPORTUNITIES -
Acreage
25.8
55.9
28.7
2.0
146.7
25e.2 21~1.7
PALOMA DEL SOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECrF/C PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO, ~ 4 Page HI-S0
immediately northwest of the site, at the intersection of Margarita and
Pauba Roads. This park will contain sports fields and recreational facilities
for use by all residents in the area.
2)
Private Active Participation Opportunities. In medium-high density single family
detached neighborhoods and in neighborhoods cont~inlng attached housing types,
private recreation facilities will be provided at a rate of one acre per 500 persons.
It is expected that there will be a number of these recreational facilities throughout
the site in the medium-high, and very high density areas. The paseo and readway
systems have segmented the property into nnmerous residential ericlaves
(neighborhoods). It is envisioned that the majority of those ericlaves will have
private recreational facilities. Private recreational areas may include facilities such
as pools, spas, cabAriAs, meeting rooms, barbecues, wetbars, and kitchen facilities.
In the mediocre density areas these private recreational facilities will be located
within secondary paseo parkways which weave through the neighbor hoods.
It should be emphasized that PALOMA DEL SOL is being planned as a single
integrated community and that the community-wide recreational facilities (paseos/
trails, community recreation centere, neighborhood parks, and the equestrian trail)
will be available to all residents of PALOMA DEL SOL. Future individual tract
approvals must therefore receive credit for the overall project-wide open space and
recreation systems in assessing open space and recreation requirements for each
future individual tract.
3) Open Space, Greenbelt Paseos, Parkway Paseos.
a)
Open Space Corridors will be provided in the medium and medium-high
density residential neighborhoods and will be calculated at a rate of one acre
per 250 persons. One exception is that provisions for internal greenbelt/
pasees are not required when average lot sizes meet or exceed a 7,200 square
foot minimum. Greenbelt/paseos will provide several functions. First, they
will give additional separation' between numerous dwellings in the medium
and medium-high density residential neighborhoods (essentially, higher
density single family neighborhoods). Second, they will provide an area for
a limited amount of passive recreational opport~mlties to occur. Third, in
many instances, they will provide a link to the cOmm,nlty paseo system
(discussed below). Fourth, in the medium-high density residential areas, they
will provide an area in which neighborhood active participation recreational
facilities can be located. Facilities, other than those just noted, will not be
provided within these corridors with the possible exception of a trail in some
locations. However, paseo areas will be landscaped with tuff, trees, etc. so
that they will be aesthetically pleasing. The corridors will be owned and
maintained by a neighborhood homeowners association.
b)
Community "Backbone" Greenbelt / Paseo System. The community paseo
system contslnlng a total of 28 acres of land, will provide pedestrian and
PALOMA DF, L SOL III. SPEcrnc PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~ 4 Page III-32
2)
3)
4)
5)
bicycle access llnk~ throughout the PALOMA DEL SOL comm,,nlty. The system
will vary in width and will meander throughout the commnnity. (See Figure
11.) Being fully landscaped, the system not only will function as a trail
system, but it also will be aesthetically piessing and will provide dwelling .
~nlt and land use separations. The system will contnln a pedestrian path
that is 8 feet in width, and COmmnnlty activity nodes wiLL provide linkages
not only to each neighborhood within the Comrnnnlty, but also to major
destination points including schools, park, community recreation centers,
shopping fadlities, and the Rancho California Sports Park just northwest of
the site. Since aLL residents of PALOMA DEL SOL will be allowed to use this
system, it will be maintained by the Master Homeowners' Association or the
Temecula Commnnlty Services District (TCSD).
c)
Parkway Open Space Adjacent to Roadways. An expanded parkway system
will be located adjacent to aLL collector and higher volnme roadways. The
parkway system will be landscaped with turf, trees, and various additional
plant materials. Community "theme" waLLs will be located adjacent to the
parkways. Park ways will vary in width with a buffer located adjacent to
Highway 79. Some of the parkways will meander, thus creating changing and
interesting viewpoints to those using them. Sidewalks wiLL be provided on
each side of the parkways throughout the development. Also to be included
are bicycle lanes on selected roadways.
Open Space and Recreation Plan Development Standards
?::c, Three neighborhood parks will be provided for the benefit of aLL residents
within the Community.
The neighborhood parks may contain the following facilities/equipment: Picnic
area(s), tot lot(s), exercise course(s), playfield(s), rest rooms, parking areas, and a
basketball court (half-court), soccer fields and baseball fields.
T'::c, One neighborhood park/recreational areas will be provided for the benefit of
all residents within the community.
The neighborhood park/recreation centers may be developed as a public or private
passive parks. As an alternative, the sites may be developed as a private or pubLic
active parks or recreation centers which may contain the foLLowing representative
equipment: Pool Complex (swimming pool, pool deck, wading pool and spa), tennis
courts, volleyball courts, tot lot, adventure play, group picnic/barbecue facilities,
open play turf area, clubhouse buiMing, and parking areas. (See Section IV, Design
Guidelines for further definition of included equipment.)
Five sites will be provided for schools (four elementary schools, and one jnnlor high
school). When constructed, those schools will have playgrounds and areas which
pALOMA DEL SOL IH. SPECIFIC PLAN
SpECtnC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~. 4 Pag~ ]]1-33
1. Plannin~ Area I
a. Descriptive Summary
Planning Area 1, as depicted on Figure 15A, provides for development of ~o~. ~. 31.5 acres
with Community/Neighborhood Commercial use. A typical site plan is depicted in the
Design Guidelines, Sec. IV.
b. Land Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 92-20 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab.)
c. Planning Standards
Access to the Planning Area will be provided from Margarita Road, State Route 79
and a secondary roadway ('H" Street) to the northeast. Access points, as depicted,
are conceptual. Access to'the individual pJA,~ning areas .shall be determined when
tract maps or plot plans are submitted. Access along Highway 79 is subject to
CalTrans approval.
2)
A Minor Community entry statement will be provided at the intersection of
Highway 79 and Margarita Road at the southwest boundary of the Planning Area.
(See Figure 32.)
3)
Minor Project entry statements will be provided at the intersection of "H" Street
and Meadows Parkway at the northeastern boundary of the Planning Area and at
the intersection of Margarita Road and Portola Road at the northwestern corner
of Planning Area 36. (See Figures 35 and 36.)
4)
A Major Community entry statement will be provided at the intersection of
Highway 79 and Meadows Parkway at the southeastern boundary of the Planning
Area. (See Figure 32 and 33).
5)
Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted on Figures 25, 23A, 23A,
23B and 27 respectively shall be provided along Highway 79, Margarita Road,
Meadows Parkway, De P~ortola Road, and "H" Street.
6)
A bicycle trail will be located in Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and "H"
Street to the north and east of the PlAnning Area as shown on Figure 6.
7)
A Project Intersection statement, as depicted on Figure 38, will be provided at De
Portola Road and "H" Street.
8)
Please refer to Section III.A. 1. through III.A. 8, for the following Development Plans
and Standards that apply site-wide:
PALOMA DEL SOL IlL SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~ 4 Page III-45
6. Plannin~ Area 6
a. Descriptive Summary
Planning Area 6, as depicted on Figure 15F, provides for development of 37.8 36.3 acres
with Very High density residential use. A maxim,rn total of 4-9~ 590 dwelling units are
planned at a target density of 16.5 du/ac (Density Range 14-20 du/ac). A conceptual site
plan is depicted in the Design Guidelines, Sec. IV.
b. Land Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 92-20 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab.)
, c. Planning Standards
1)
Access to the Planning Area will be provided from a collector roadway ("H" Street)
to the south, De Portola Road to the north, and Meadows Parkway to the east.
Access points, as depicted, are conceptual. Access to individual pbnrdng areas shah
be determined when tract maps or plot plans are submitted.-
2)
A Community Intersection entry statement will be provided at the intersection of
Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road at the northeastern boundary of the
Planning Area. (See Figure 34.) A minor project entry statement shall be provided
at the comer of Meadows Parkway and de Portola Road at the southeastern corner
of the Planning Area (see Figure 35).
3)
A minimum of one neighborhood entry statement will be provided at egress points
onto "H" Street at the southern boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figure 37.)
4)
Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted on Figures 23B, 23B and
.27 respectively shall be provided along De Portela Road, Meadows Parkway, and
"H" Street.
5)
Private recreation facilities are planned which may include facilities such as pools,
spas, cabanas, meeting roams, barbecues, wet bars, and kitchen facilities.
Bicycle trails will be located in De Portola Road, Meadows Parkway, and "H" Street
surrounding the Planning Area as shown on Figure 6.
7) Balconies may encroach into building setback lines.
s)
A site of archaeological/historical significance is located within this planning area.
Prior to issuance of Development or Grading Penits, an appropriate detailed
mitigation program shall be identified and, if necessary, completed. This program
shall be approved by the History Division of the Riverside County Parks and
Recreation Department.
PALOMA DEL SOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN
SpscInc PLAN No. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~ 4 Page III-60
12. Planninm{ Area 12
a. Descriptive Summary
planning Area 12, as depicted on Figure 15L, provides for development of 7.4 acres with
a neighborhood park or a commnnity recreation facility. A ~7~zr2 conceptual site plan
is depicted in the Design Guidelines, Sec. IV.
b. Land Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 92-20 (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab.)
c. Planning Standards
1)
Access to the planning Area will be provided from the Collector Road "D" Street to
the south.
2)
Access to the site will also be available from the community paseo system to the
north.
3)
Roadway landscape treatment, as depicted on Figures 27, shall be provided along
the Collector Road "D" Street to the south.
4) The Community Paseo to the north shall be developed in accordance to Figure 30.
5)
For park/rccrcation facility conceptual design plan ~ see the Design Manual Section
of this Specific Plan, (Section IV.B.). This Planning Area will be constructed and
fully operational prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 4,576th
residential unit within the Specific Plan.
6)
A bicycle trail will be located in "D" Street to the south of the P]nnning Area as
shown on Figure 6.
7)
Please refer to Section III.A. 1. through III.A.8. for the following Development Plans
and Standards that apply site-wide:
III.A.1. Specific Land Use Plan
III.A.2. Circulation Plan
III.A.3. Drainage Plan
III.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans
III.A.5. Public Facility Sites Phasing Plan
III.A.6. Grading Plan
III.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan
III.A.8. Landscaping Plan
8) Please refer to Section IV., Design Guidelines for related criteria.
PALOMA DEL SOL Ill. SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECW~C PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. a 4 Page III-78
37. Planning Area 37
a. Descriptive Summary
pJ~nn~ng Area 37, as depicted on Figure 15F, provides for development of 8.0 9~5 acres
with a neighborhood park. A conceptual site plan is provided in the Design Guidelines,
Section IV.
b. L~nd Use and Development Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No. 92-20. (See S.P. Zone Ordinance Tab.)
c. Planning Standards
1) Access to the Planning Area will be provided from "H" Street and De Portola Road.
2) A bicycle trail will be located in "H" Street and in De Portola ROad.
3)
For park concept design plans, see the Design Manual section ofthls Specific Plan,
Section IV.B. This facility shall be constructed and fully operable prior to the
issuance of the occupancy permit for the 1,971st residential unit within the Specific
Plan.
4)
Please refer to Section III.A.1 through III.A.8 for the following Development Plans
and Standards that apply site-wide:
III.A. 1. Specific Land Use Plan
III.A.2. Circulation Plan
III.A.3. Drainage Plan
III.A.4. Water and Sewer Plans
III.A.5. Public Facfiity Sites Phasing Plan
III.A. 6. Grading Plan
III.A.7. Open Space and Recreation Plan
III.A. 8. Landscaping Plan
5)
Please also see Section IV, Design Guidelines, for related criteria.
PALOMA nEL SOL ILl. SPECIfiC PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO.; 4 Page Ili-150
Phase
I
II
III
Use
Table 4
DEVELOPMENT PHASING
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Park or Recreation Area
Elementary School
Day Care Center
Cornre/Neigh/CommerCial
Neighborhood
Commercial
pJ~annlng
Area
Subtotal
17
18
33(partial)
16
19
7
34
1
36
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium High
Medium
Elementary School
Neighborhood Park
Subtotal
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium High
Medium High
Medium High
Junior
Elementary Schoql
Subtotal
4
8
33(partial)
3
20
~2
37
25
26
9
10
28
31
15
21
22(partial)
30
29
Acres
73.0
32.0
15.0
49.2
7.7
11.0
2.0
~4 31.5
2.5
~28~8 223.9
40.0
89.0
22.0
48.0
40.0
10.0
~,O258.5
16.0
30.0
44.0
78.0
30.0
67.0
17.0
36.8
16.0
20,0
10.0
364.8
D.U.'s
325
146
66
271
808
188
400
99
255
220
1,162
67
149
198
351
135
214
93
202
86
1,495
PALOMA DEL SOL III. SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. $ 4 . Page III-153
Phase
V
Table 4
DEVELOPMENT PHASING
(continued)
Medium High
Medium High
Medium High
Elementary School
Neighborhood Park-s~
~fc~fion ~c~z
Neighborhood
Commercial
Neighborhood Park
Area
Subtotal
Medium High
Very High
Medium High
Very High
Subtotal
Other Major Streets
Land Greenbelt Paseos
Uses Roadway Paseos
14
22(partial)
23
11
12
27
24
13
6
5
2
PROJECT TOTAL
Acl-~s
49.0
48.0
66.0
10.0
7.4
15.0
2.9
198.3
32.0
2D.~ 36.3
35.5
20.0
1238
110.9
28.0
83.3
1,391.5
269
266
363
898
176
~2 590
155
320
5,604
PALOMA DEL SOL Ill. SPECWIC PLAN
SPEClF~C PLAN NO. 219/AMENDMENT NO. ~ 4 Page III-154
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 1994
Specific Plan No. 228, Environmental impact Report No. 251
Change of Zone 5481, Murdy Ranch
Prepared by: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
CONTINUE off-calendar and re-advertise
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
MurdyrTrotter
REPRESENTATIVES: RBF and Associates
PROPOSAL:
A request for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, approval
of a Change of Zone from Light Agriculture, 10 acre minimum (A-1-10)
to Specific Plan (SP) and approval of a Specific Plan for a 557 acre
planned residential community with 2,278 residential units including 592
multi-family units, 20 acres of commercial, three (3) school sites, 29
acres of parks, 12.7 acres of open space and 49.5 acres of major roads
for a total of 557 acres
LOCATION:
East of Lome Linda Drive and north of Pale Road
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Accompanying the Specific Plan is Environmental Impact Report No. 251. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires Environmental Impact Reports be advertised for
a public hearing 45 days in advance of the hearing to allow other agencies and the public to
comment on the EIR. During this 45 day review period, the additional information requested
by staff was not submitted due t circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.
Therefore, staff recommends continuing this item off*calendar and re-advertising it, after staff
receives the necessary information from the applicant.
ITEM #8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
June 6, 1994
Master Conditional Use Permit
Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING ORDINANCE 348 TO CREATE PROVISIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL OF MASTER
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS""
BACKGROUND
The City Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on November 5, 1993 to
investigate the feasibility of developing a major destination entertainment facility in and around
the Old Town area. During the preliminary development of this project, Staff has identified
the need for a mechanism to permit the development of the facility while ensuring the
protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community.
DISCUSSION
The Master Conditional Use Permit would create a simplified two-step permitting process that
allows the City Council to approve the Master Conditional Use Permit (with a Planning
Commission recommendation) and allows the Director of Planning to approve the specific
building(s) and facilities. The provisions of the proposed Ordinance are intended to:
· Apply only to public-private development projects for which the City is a partner in;
Provide for the specific approval of project facilities or uses in specified general
locations;
Incorporate all specified mitigation measures identified during the environmental review
process;
Satisfy the requirements for specific conditional use permit in the City zoning
ordinance; and ~.~
· Facilitate the timely development of certain complex City-private sector development
projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on the
environment. Therefore, the Director of Planning has determined that the project is exempt
from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Staff has identified no provisions of the General Plan which would be inconsistent with the
proposed Ordinance. As a result, the proposed Ordinance has been determined to be
consistent with the adopted City General Plan.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 94-
2. CC Ordinance No. 94-
- Blue Page 3
- Blue Page 6
R:\STAFFRFI'~ICU'P-ORD.PC 611194 kJb 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATrACttMENT NO. I
PC I~-~OLUTION NO.
"A R!~-qOLUTION OF ~ PIANNING COMMISSION FOR
~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT ~
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ~ ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA AIV[KWDING ORDINANCE 348 TO CREATE
PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ~ APPROVAL
OF MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS""
WHI~.REAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference cert:~in portions of the non-
codflied Riverside County Ordinnnces, including Ordinance No. 348; and,
WI~,REAS, such regulations do not contain adequate provisions concerning the
development of some public-private joint venture projects; and,
WlcrF. REAS, this proposed ordinance would provide another mechanism to facilitate the
timely development of joint public-private projects; and,
WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinances; and,
WI~.REAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Offme and the Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce: and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing were conducted on June 6, 1994, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby fmds that the
proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance will provide for the timely and efficient
implementation of joint venture projects for which the City is an active partner.
Section 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further fmds that the
proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan.
Section 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula funher finds that the
proposed Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a
significant impacts on the environment and has determined that the project is exempt from
California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).
Section 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends
to the City Council that the Council adopts the proposed Master Conditional Use Permit
Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HERERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THOR_NI-mJ.
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 94---
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ C1TY
OF TEIVIECUIA AMENDING ORDINANCE 348 TO
CREATE PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THY,
APPROVAL OF MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findines The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
following findings:
A. That according to State planning and Zoning Law, a City may adopt locally
appropriate zoning and development regulations;
B. That the City Council adopted the zoning regulations for the County of Riverside
by reference shortly after incorporation;
C. That the Council has determined there is a need to amend the current zoning
regulations to cream an appropriate mechanism for permitting the timely and efficient
development of joint public-private projects;
D. That an appropriate mechanism for permitting joint public-private projects is the
Master Conditional Use Permit; and,
E. That this Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and
local ordinances.
Section 2. Ordinance Section 18.48 is hereby added to Article XVIII of Ordinance
No. 348 to read as follows:
"Section 18.48. MASTP_;R CONDITIONAL USE PERIVIITS
a. Purpose and Intent. The City Council has enacted this section to facilitate the
timely and efficient development of large scale joint public-private projects. This section may
be applied to any large scale development project for which the City has entered into a
memorandum of understanding or development agreement with a public or private party to
jointly investigate, consider, develop, or construct such project. This section is intended to
provide for the specific approval of project facilities or uses in general locations. A Master
Conditional Use Permit satisfies the requirements for specific conditional use permit(s) identified
in the City zoning ordinance.
b. Application Requirements. Applications for a Master Conditional Use Permit
shall be submitted to the Planning Department on,City application forms together with all fees,
plans and any other information required by Section 18.26 of Ordinance 348 and the Director
Of Planning.
c. Hearing and Notice. Upon determination that an application for a Master
Conditional Use Permit is complete, a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be
noticed and scheduled in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 18.26. The Director
and Planning Cornmigsion shall make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council
shall be the final hearing body for Master Conditional Use Permits.
d. Finding. To approve or conditionally approve a Master Conditional Use Permit,
the City Council must make the following findings:
1. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General
Plan, the development cede, and applicable specific phns.
2. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with a signed
memorandum of understanding or development agreement between the City and a private party.
3. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit wffi result in a tangible and
substantial public benefit.
4. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the nature,
condition and development of adjacent uses, bullclings, and structures and that the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, and structures.
5. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, wails, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping,
and other development features prescribed in the zoning ordinance.
6. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community.
7. The subsequent site specific development permits will be submitted and
approved to incorporate all appropriate environmental impact mitigation measures and rehted
on- and off-site improvements.
e. Conditions of Approval. A Master Conditional Use Permit shall not be granted
unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use(s) wffi not be detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of the community. Any permit that is granted shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community.
f. Subsequent Development Permits.
1. No specific use or activity authorized by a Master Conditional Use Permit
may be initiated, and no authorized structure may be erected or used, unless a site specific
development permit or plot plan has been approv.~ed by the Director of Planning.
2. The application for the subsequent approval(s) sh~ll include the appropriate
fee and shall be made in a manner and on the forms specified by the Director of Phnning.
3. The Director of Planning shnil ensure that all appropriate environmental
impact mitigation measures and related on- and off-site improvements are made conditions of,
or prerequisites to, the approval of the subsequent development permit.
4. The Director of plnnnlng shall make a finding that any proposed
subsequent development permits are consistent with the conditions identified in the approved
Master Conditional Use Permit.
5. Afar a duly noticed public hearing, the ~r of Planning may approve,
approve with conditions, or deny any application for a subsequent site specific development
permit. The Director may deny any application that is inconsistent with the approved Master
Conditional Use Permit or the mitigation measures in the certified environmental document, or
if the proposed subsequent development permit does not meet the performance standards
contained in the zoning ordinance, or an applicable approved specific plan.
g. Transferability of Master Conditional Use Permit. No Master Conditional Use
Permit may be transferred or assigned without the specff'm written approval of the City Council.
h. Use of Master Conditional Use Permit.
1. Unless otherwise provided in the conditions of approval, a Master
Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void three (3) years after approval unless the permittee
has commenced the conditionally approved use(s). Commencement of the use(s) shall mean the
beginning of substantial construction of the authorized use(s), which construction must thereafter
be pursued diligently to completion, or in the case of an existing building, the actual occupancy
of the building or land under the terms of the approved permit.
2. Prior to the expiration of the Master Conditional Use Permit, the permittee
may request an extension of time in which to use the permit. For good cause, two (2) twelve
(12) month time extensions may be granted by the City Council. The City Council may add
additional conditions or requirements to the conditions of appwval when approv'mg a time
extension. The request for an extension of time Shall be made on the forms and in the manner
prescribed by the Director of Planning.
i. Revocation of a Master Conditional Use Permit. Any Master Conditional Use
Permit may be revoked upon the findings and procedures contained in Section 18.31."
Section 3. Environmental Compliance The City Council determines that this
amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act because adoption of this ordinance wffi have no impact on the
environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines). Each application for a Master
Conditional Use Permit will undergo the appropriate environmental analysis and review when
specific applications are made.
Section 4. Scvcrabili~y The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or'section of this ordinance to be invalid, such decision Shall not affect the
validity of the ro!l~alnlng parts of this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage. The City Clerk Shall ceFdfy to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City
Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance Shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption
of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish
a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
, 1994.
ATYEST:
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMBCULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 94- was duly introduced and phced upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1994, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecuh on the __ day of , by the following wll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILM]gMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
R:\STAFFRPTMMCUP-ORD.PC 611194 klb
nJNE S.
CITY CT
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 6, 1994
Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center)
Change of Zone No. 5589
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94-__ recommending
approval for Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5589 based
on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
KRDC Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
T & B Planning Consultants
PROPOSAL:
Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial
core, 810,000 square feet of Office/Institutional with possible
Multi-Family Residential and an additional 298,000square feet of
Retail Commercial with an accompanying Change of Zone request
changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
(Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific
Plan No. 263).
LOCATION:
Southeast corner of the intersection of Ynez and Winchester
Roads
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial)
A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot
size)
C~P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan No. 263)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
CC (Community Commercial)
0 (Professional Office)
BP (Business Park)
P (Public/Institutional)
Specific Plan Overlay
Village Center Overlay
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial Development (Costco)
Vacant
Vacant
Commercial Development (Palm Plaza)
PlanninQ Area 1
Total Area
Possible Residential
Retail/Office Building Area
72 Acres
300 Units
810,000 Square Feet
Plannine Area 2
Total Area
Commercial Retail Building Area
97.8 Acres
1,555,000 Square Feet
Plannine Area 3
Total Area
Retail/Office Building Area
5.5 Acres
118,000 Square Feet
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5.58'9 were continued from the May 23, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to provide more
detailed information on the Village Center concept proposed for Planning Area 1.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project proposal is a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on
201.3 acres. The project site is located along the south side of Winchester Road between
Ynez and Margarita Roads. The City's General Plan designates the site as Specific Plan and
Village Center overlay areas. The underlying land use designations of the General Plan consist
of Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park and Public Institutional. The
Specific Plan document contains the zoning, development standards and architectural
guidelines for the project site. The proposed zoning and development standards contained
within the Specific Plan document will govern development for this site over the City's
Development Code unless it is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance.
R:\STAFFRPT~63Sp. PC3 6131o,4 du 2
ANALYSIS
Villaoe Center Concept
Planning Area 1 located within the Regional Center Specific Plan has a General Plan Overlay
designation of Village Center. Under the General Plan, the intent of the Village Center Overlay
is to develop centers which will help to provide a sense of place, as well as, focal points for
community activity. These Village Centers are intended to contain a concentration and
mixt~tre of compatible uses including retail, housing, and institutional. Additionally, each
Village Center should have design guidelines and development standards.
While the applicant has provided language relative to the Regional Center's Village Center, this
language has been deemed inadequate by staff. At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to provide stronger language in the Specific
Plan which would ensure the development of a Village Center in Planning Area 1. In addition,
staff has requested the applicant provide design guidelines and development standards in the
Specific Plan.
Pursuant to the Commission's direction at the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting,
the applicant has provided new language relative to the Village Center Concept, as well as,
a number of illustratives (reference Attachment 3). Both the language and illustratives will be
included in the Final Specific Plan.
Circulation
At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested the Commission provide
direction on the timing and funding of both on-site and off-site improvements. The Public
Works Department proposes the following:
That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain regional
improvements as detailed in the Conditions of Approval in exchange for "setting aside"
the project implementation responsibility for other regional facilities listed in
Attachment "A" to the Mitigation Monitoring Program (refer to Attachment No. 5),
That this Specific Plan be required to support either supplemental bond sales or district
restructuring and supplemental bond sales as detailed in the Conditions of Approval
which provide for the regional facilities listed in Attachment "A" to the Mitigation
Monitoring Program (refer to Attachment No. 5).
That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain facilities within
and adjacent to the project as detailed in the Conditions of Approval.
The timing for these facility requirements may be further defined through the
conditioning of subsequent development applications and the requisite phasing
application.
A typical section be added to the Specific Plan for the primary onsite circulation
road(s).
R:\STAFFRPT~263Sp. PC3 6/3/94 du 3
Landscape Development Zone (LDZ)
The provision for a 37 foot Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road was
discussed at the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant stated he would
provide this 37 foot LDZ. The Final Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will contain an
exhibit that illustrates this LDZ.
School Mitiaation
The Temecula Unified School District is requesting the developer sign a mitigation agreement
with the District prior to Specific Plan approval. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 340
certified for the site on July 13, 1993 states that "the project applicant shall enter into a
binding agreement with the Temecula Unified School District to insure the provision of
adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy." Staff has conditioned the Specific Plan
to comply with the mitigation proposed in the previously certified EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was prepared for the project and certified by the City
Council on July 13, 1993. Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration for
Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation, and Libraries and a
Mitigation Monitoring Program were adopted at that time.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan designations of
Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public\Institutional, Specific Plan
Overlay, and Village Center Overlay. Upon adoption by the City Council, Change of Zone
5589 which proposes to change the zoning on the site from Rural Residential (R-R) and Heavy
Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP) will render the Specific Plan
consistent with the zoning on the site.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed the applicant
to better define the Village Center Concept. Subsequent to this meeting, the applicant has
provided staff with new language which better defines the Village Center Concept, as well as,
illustratives. This new language and the illustratives will be provided in the Final Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan. The Commission also provided information to the Public Works
staff on the timing and funding of both on-site and off-site traffic improvements.
FINDINGS
Soecific Plan 263
Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City's General Plan. General Plan designations
for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public
Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay.
Specific Plan 263 is compatible with surrounding land uses of Commercial to the north
(Costco) and west (Palm Plaza).
Specific Plan 263 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it
does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area.
Environmental Impact Report 340 was prepared for the Specific Plan, and was certified
by the City Council July 13, 1993. No immediate impacts to the environment will
result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from future development can be
mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were
adopted by the City Council on July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality,
Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries.
Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs
contained in the General Plan. The key objective in the General Plan that relates to this
Specific Plan calls for the development of a Village Center with mixed uses, pedestrian
oriented design, and linkages to surrounding projects. In addition, the Village Center
is intended to be a community focal point with high quality site and building design
which provides for the incorporation of transit facilities.
Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Chanae of Zone 5589
Change of Zone 5589 will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as
determined in Environmental Impact Report 340 prepared for the project. No
immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan
(SP), Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than
significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council
on July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries.
Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with' the City of Temecula General Plan. General
Plan designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business .
Park, Public\Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay.
Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan.
The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses
currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel is of
adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site, Proposed potential
access points to the site will be from Ynez and Margarita Roads. Additional internal
access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed
in conformance with City of Temecula standards.
6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 7
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Revised "Village Center Concept" Language - Blue Page 23
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan - Blue Page 24
Attachment "A", Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340 - Blue Page 25
Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, April 18, 1994 - Blue Page 26
R:\STA]FFP, PT~2635p. I~C3 6/3/94 du 6
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO, 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATTACIIM~NT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
263 PROPOSING A 1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT COMIMI~CIAL CORE,
810,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE
MULTI-FAMII .Y RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000 SQUARE
FF..I~.T OF RETAIl. COMMI~.RCIAL; APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE
NO. 5589 TO CHANGE T!tF. ZONING PROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
R) AND B~.&VY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE 1VHNIMUM (A-2-20) TO
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP). ~ PROJECT IS LOCATED AT ~
SO~AST CORNER OF ~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ AND
WINC~rgSTER ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-
130-046 AND 047, 921-090-005, 006 AND 007.
WltF. REAS, ICRDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 263 in accordance with the Riverside
County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHF. REAS, said application was pwcessed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WI~.REAS, the Planning Commission considered said application on June 6, 1994, at
which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said application;
NOW, TFIEREFORE, TFIt. PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the following findings, to wit:
Specific Plan 263
1. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City's General Plan. General Plan
designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public
Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overhy.
2. Specific Plan 263 is compatible with surrounding land uses of Commercial
to the north (Costco) and west (palm Plaza).
3. Specific Plan 263 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area.
Environmental Impact Report 340 was prepared for the Specific Plan, and was certified by the
City Council July 13, 1993. No immediate impacts W the environment wffi result fwm the
adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from future development can be ntitigated W a level less
than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council on
July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quaiity, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation,
Circulation and Libraries.
4. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan. The key objective in the General Plan that relates to
this Specific Plan calls for the development of a Village Center with mixed uses, pedestrian
oriented design, and linkages to surrounding projects. In addition, the Village Center is intended
to be a community focal point with high quality site and building design which pwvides for the
incorporation of transit facilities.
5. Said fmdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Change of Zone 5589
1. Change of Zone 5589 will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment as determined in Environmental Impact Report 340 prepared for the pwject. No
immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone fwm Rural
Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) W Specific Plan (SP).
Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements
of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council on July 13, 1993 for the
following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries.
2. Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the City of Temecula General
Plan. General Plan designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office,
Business Park, PublicXInstitutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay.
3. Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation programs contained in the General Plan.
4. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel
is of adequate size and shape for any pwposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
5. Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed
potential access points to the site will be from Ynez and Margarita Roads. Additional internal
access and required mad improvements to the site will be designed and constructed in
conformance with City of Temecula standards.
6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and heroin incorporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Previously certified Environmental Impact
Report No. 340 analyzed the significant innpacts of Specific Plan No. 263 and proposed
mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula planning Commission hereby
recommends appmvai of Specific Plan No. 263 located southwest comer of Ynez and
Winchester Roads.
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STBVEN J. FORD
C~
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopt~ by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regnlax meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of June
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECR~T~RY
R:XSTAFFR~263SP.ItC3 613194 du 'l 0
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRFI~263Sp. PC3 613/94 d~ 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center)
Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial
core, 810,000square feet of Office\Institutional with possible Multi-Family Residential,
and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying
Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R*R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
(Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan).
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130-046and 047,921-090-005,006 and 007
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Conditions
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Specific Plan No, 263, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense, If the City fails to promptly notify
the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
· ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform
with the approvad Specific Plan, Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific
Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the
time entitlement is required,
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 340 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of
final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any
subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage
of development that permits are being issued for.
Prior to the City Council hearing, Planning Area 3 shall be changed to Business Park
and the appropriate zoning and development standards shall be established for Business
Park designation ......
R:\STAFFRPT~263SP.PC3 6/3/94 du 12
The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor,
along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on
all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps.
Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within each Planning Area within
the Specific Plan, a detailed design manual for each Planning Area shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission.
Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific
Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all
conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City
Council. A master print copy (8 ~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall
be submitted.
Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive
appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on
project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the
City Engineer.
10.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for
maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter
removal.
11.
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180,
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
12.
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the project, the project applicant shall
enter into a binding mitigation agreement the with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan.
13.
If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer
made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions
enumerated herein shall take precedence.
t4.
Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review
by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance
with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may
have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed
amendment is submitted.
15. The developer shall satisfy all the Quim by Act requirements for the project.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
General Conditions
16.
All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the
project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site
(except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
17.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department
of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department
of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action
contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said
correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City.
Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies
shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
18.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be
in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public
facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which
the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the
Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure
payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square
foot, not to exceed (& 10,000. The Developer understands that said agreement may
require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; Provided that the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
19.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire any offsite property interests
necessary for the provision of improvements associated with this Specific Plan and in
adherence to the K-Rat/Quimby requirements and if the Developer should fail to do so,
the Developer shall, prior to submittal of any final map for recordation, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section
66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the
Developer of all costs incurred by the Ci~.y to acquire the offsite property interests
R:\STAFFRJ~\263Sp. PC3 613194 d~ 14
required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall
be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by
the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the
City prior to commencement of the appraisal. Only upon Developer's initial attempt to
obtain necessary right-of-way, City shall, at Developer's expense, obtain right-of-way
via eminent domain proceedings.
20.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall
be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
21.
A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall
be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to
approval of any subsequent development application.
Circulation
22.
As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with
this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
23.
Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of
development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to office and
commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of
submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way at entries to
the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by
the Department of Public Works.
24.
All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and
requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and
standards.
25.
All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements. Accesses shown from Winchester Road to the site are conditional upon
Caltrans' approval. Approval for accesses not currently shown on the City's
Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans will be required prior to subsequent
discretionary approvals or any permits being issued by the City.
26.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location
and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside
Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus
bays shall be provided by the Developer.
27.
Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic
studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific
Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning
Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development
considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing
plan approved with the adoption of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, as
determined by the Department of Public-Works and the Planning Director, may be
R:~STAFFRJr~\263Sp. PC3 613/94 du 15
28,
29.
approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in
the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set
herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded
as required by the Department of Public Works.
Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent
development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation
and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to
issuance of any occupancy:
Winchester Road overpass at Interstate 15 (I-15) and the interchange ramps
shall be widened and improved, respectively, along with associated additional
necessary widening and improvements to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to
Jefferson Avenue.
Winchester Road parkway improvements, including sidewalks, landscaping, and
street lights, from Ynez Road to Margarita Road, shall be completed by the
Developer.
· The traffic signals at the following intersections shall be installed/completed:
Winchester Road and Nicolas Road
Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road
The Developer is responsible to bond for and construct the traffic signals at the
project's accesses from Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Winchester Road, as
required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal
warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications.
A reimbursement agreement shall be executed between the Developer and the
City to reimburse the City the cost of the existing improvements along
Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road, since these
improvements mitigate the traffic requirements of the proposed development.
These improvements were provided by the City's Capital Improvement Project.
The Developer shall support the Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12
supplemental bond sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from
Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue (including the I-15 overpass), in accordance
with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying
Overland Drive as a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-way,
and including the traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez
Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road.
Solana Way, from Margarita Road to Ynez Road, shall be widened to Four lanes.
In the event that Solana Way is not constructed by CFD 88-12, the Developer
shall bond for and construct the improvements to Solana Way, from Margarita
Road to Ynez Road, including a-~' 2 foot wide raised landscaped median, in
R:~STAFFRPT~263SP.I~'~3 6~/94 du 16
30.
31.
32.
accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan
ctassifying Solana Way as a Major Highway with 100 foot full width right-of-
way.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the
end of the first year of development to be defined as the 125,000th SF of
development. The improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of occupancy
for the 125,000th SF of development.
Winchester Road, from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, shall be
widened to six lanes. In the event that Winchester Road is not constructed by
Assessment District lAD) 161, the Developer shall construct or bond for the
improvements to construct Winchester Road, from Margarita Road to Murrieta
Hot Springs Road, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in
accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan
classifying Winchester Road as an Urban Arterial Highway with 134 foot full
width right-of-way subject to a reimbursement agreement with the City for that
percentage of the improvement cost over and above the project implementation
responsibility.
Margarita Road, from Solana Way to Winchester Road, shall be widened to four
lanes. The Developer shall bond for and construct the improvements to
Margarita Road, from Solana Way to Winchester Road, including a 14 foot wide
raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross
Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway
with 110 foot full width right-of-way.
Overland Drive shall be constructed from Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue
(including the I-15 overpass), in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross
Section of City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Secondary
Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-way, and including the traffic signals
at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez Road, Jefferson Avenue, and
Margarita Road.
The Developer shall bond for and construct full street improvements to Overland
Drive, from Margarita Road to Ynez Road, including a 12 foot wide raised
landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of
City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Major Highway with 100
foot full width right-of-way.
The Developer shall bond for and construct the improvements to Ynez Road, from
Equity Drive to Temecula/Murrieta city limits, including a 14 foot wide raised
landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's
General Plan classifying Ynez Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width
right-of-way in exchange for "setting aside" other project implementation
responsibilities.
Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue, from Equity Drive To Murrieta Hot Springs Road, shall be
bonded for and constructed as an interim two lane facility in exchange for "setting
aside" other project implementation respo,',sibilities. Timing for the construction of the
R:\STAFFP, PT~263Sp. PC3 6/3/94 du 17
33.
34.
Drainage
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
improvement shall be determined by the Department of Public Works pursuant to
subsequent Traffic Studies associated with any subsequent development application.
The Developer is responsible to bond for and construct the traffic signals at the
intersections listed below. The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and
shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of
Public Works at the following intersections:
Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal)
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
Margarita Road and Solana Way
The Specific Plan's percent implementation responsibility for the following
improvements per the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Monitoring Program
and Attachment "A" have been "assigned" to other improvement conditions.
Margarita Road, from the existing four lane thoroughfare to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road.
Murrieta Hot Springs Road, from Date Street to Canyon Road.
Winchester Road interchange improvements.
Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy
of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities.
Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site
development within that phase.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility
improvements and the offsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific
Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public
Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
R:~STAFFP, F~263Sp. PC3 6/3/94 du 18
41. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
42.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing drainage easements.
Water and Sewer
43.
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision
or plot plan stages of the development.
44.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from
RCWD.
45.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from
EMWD.
46.
Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any
plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate
wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan development.
Grading
47.
No grading shall be permitted for any deyelopment area prior to tentative map or plot
plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development.
48.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report,
or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading
permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and
standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
document.
49.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements.
R:\STAFFRPT~263SP.PC3 6/3/94 du 19
50.
51.
52.
53,
54.
55,
56.
57.
58.
The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan {SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual
grading plan to indicate at a minimum:
· Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City
Standards and NPDES requirements.
· Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
· Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas
which will be graded during the rainy months.
· Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations.
Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within
30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
schedule of operations.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic,
seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel
map for each phase of proposed development.
All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting
of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading
permits.
R:\STAFFILr/~263SP.PC3 613194 du 20
59.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (i.e. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing
60.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate
vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and
further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and
purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
61.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the
specifications of the Specific Plan.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Regional Center Specific Plan was originally presented to staff as
a mixed-use commercial development combining retail, office, hotel, institutional, and regional
mall facilities. However, the possibility exists that multi-family residential development could
occur within Planning Area 1. In the event that residential development is approved, the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides additional conditions for the Temecula
Regional Center, as follows:
General Requirements
62.
The developer, his successor or assignee, shall satisfy the park land dedication
requirements in accordance with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). Upon
determination of the actual park land dedication requirement, the City of Temecula shall
have the final decision of requiring the developer to dedicate land for public park
purposes, or pay the equivalent "in-lieu" fee.
63.
Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial/industrial
development and multi-family residential development shall be maintained by a private
property owner's association.
64.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual
property owner or an established property owner's association.
65.
Class II bike lanes shall be designed in conformity with the City's Park and Recreation
Master Plan and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
66.
The landscaped medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula
Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
67.
The developer, his successor or assignee, shall maintain the landscaping and medians
until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
68.
Construction of all proposed TCSD maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a
pre-job meeting with the developer and City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to
comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of
these areas into the TCSD maintenance program.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
69.
All proposed TCSD maintenance areas (medians) shall be identified and offered for
dedication on the final map.
70.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, construction drawings for proposed
landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff.
71.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and
enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
72.
Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format directed by TCSD staff, the most
current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project.
73.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the
appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the TCSD
maintenance program,
R:\STAFFRPT~263SP.PC3 6/~1c~4 ~u 22
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
REVISED "VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPT" LANGUAGE
R:~STAFFRPT~263Sp. PC3 613194 du 23
jFriday Jt~e 3, 199~ 11;t5~m o- Pe~e Zr
3UN-(I1-1994 12:13 FRI3] lIB Pi_1:%'441~.13
TO 198969464?? P. 82
TEMECULI REGIONAL CElvru
L Pk.min~ Ares .1
1) M'Luure of Uses
It is the intent of the mixed us~ developngnt in p!nnning Area I of ~ Tetnecula
R~gional Center to allow for a mixture of commerciai/officeAnstitutlonal and rmiden~il
uses. TI~ mlxcd use development is designed to emxcourage active street frontages and
a conffortable, hmnan-scaled envi~,~ent th,t Cp-,r~$ a fil]]y fUnCtinainE shopping
complex (i.e., a "M,i- Street"). This Main Smut will be integramd into the overall
mixed use development in Plnnni~lg AIP..R I sad will be coRDe~ed by ]xRh ~ and
pedeslrian walkways ID title pl.nn~l retail development in Planning Area 2. Tig
Street w',ll be an easy and quick walk away from offices and resideacre in ti~ Temocuh
Regional Center. allowing boffi workers and residents to take advantage of the convenient.
locally available shopping opportunities. A conceptual illusimjve site plan depicting
Main Str~..t is ilhstramd in Figu~ 12C.
While retail development may be the p~ I~.a use in plsnnlug Area 1. it is
envisioned that this p]n--i-E area wffi also include additional employment opportunities
such as offices sad pel~onal service sho~ sml businesses. las~;.,tional and hotel uses
may be integrated physically into mixed use structures or coustrL_,~_ed as s~
buildings,
Residential uses may be integrated into the same stmctu~ as non-ze. sidcntiai uses.
Residential uses and cnlrics should constimU~ not more than 30~ of the Found floor of
any of these buildlaSS. In areas which do not direc~y face Onto the shupping SlEet(S),
freestanding residential buildings may be constructed. It is also anticipated that some
free-standing msiae-tial structures will also be erectcd in Planning Area 1.
IH-3~
~Friclay J~m~e 3, 1996 1Z:lOpm -- Page 6l
31:4 C3-1c}::J4 II:IIB ~ TY, B PLI:I*!411,~
STREET
CONCEPT
(DETAIL)
L, I~=__,-'____ ~
sto~front ~s
10ede~n'i~ oficnt~on
TEMECULA
K.C.D.C. 28250 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca 92591
FIGURE 12C
aU~PL, P. B4
2)
In planning for mixed use development, consideration shall be given to joint use of
parking, common areas, landscaping,
specific types of uses, housing types
and sizes of units, and overall
architectural design.
Planning Area 1 development is
proposed as a logical extension of the
central commercial core activity in
Planning Area 2, and a transition
between Planning Area 2 and the
adjacent residential property to the
east. Institutional uses to be
encouraged within Planning Area 1
include local, state or federal level
services (i.e., postal service, economic
development, social service, library,
museum, etc.), if there is a need or
demand for such uses.
Pedestrian connection to adjacent
Temecula Regional Center uses and
to nearby pedestrian s
Buildin~ Scale and Plannin~ Area
Design
Development in Planning Area 1
should not resemble a typical
suburban shopping center or strip
commercial plaza. The retail and
office uses in Planning Area 1 may be
arranged in a "U"-shaped
configuration around a public green
similar to traditional public greens, or
in a linear fashion to form a "Main
Street" with shops and offices oriented
directly onto the street.
internal roadway circulation (which
may be implemented by a perimeter
ring road or other similar roadway
configuration) will be provided around
the Main Street area to facilitate
traffic flow in and through Planning
Area 1. The internal roadway system
will distribute traffic to and from
principal access points on the site
--parallel parking (optional)
~ 4 - lane capacity (typ .)
Conceptual Internal Floadway
III-35;
3)
rather than on nearby arterial streets. This ring road may also connect Planning Area 1
with Planning Area 2.
Limited on-street parking may be provided on portions of the internal roadway system,
but in areas where the roadways cross parking areas, no on-street parking shall be
allowed. The primary internal access madway system will most likely be four lanes in
width. The Main Street, on the other hand, will be limited to two through lanes (one in
each direction) in order to foster a pedestrian scale.
Individual buildings within Planning Area 1 may range in height up to 120 feet, provided
that building setbacks and configurations for all streetores in excess of 50 feet in height
shall be determined by the City during Development Plan Review to ensure that adequate
light access and air is available to adjacent structures. Typically, buildings should
maintain a pedestrian scale adjacent to the shopping street. For example, the portion(s)
of a building that abuts a public street may be two or three stories in height. Additional
building stories could progressively step back as the building height and number of stories
increases. Not only will such architectural design permit light and air access to
surrounding axeas and ensure a pedestrian scale near ground level, but the massiveness
of the building will be substantially reduced.
Separate building entrances shall be required for commercial/office/institutional and
residential uses when occupying the same structure; provided that this provision does not
preclude internal connections between residential and non-residential uses.
Intensification
In order for the concept of a "Main Street" to truly function, development of a certain
density and intensity is necessary. Greater intensification of land use in this planning area
provides the opportunity for innovative architectural design and landscaping. The higher
concentrations of people will also increase the feasibility of mass transit to serve the site.
Residential uses will be limited to free-standing buildings containing single family
attached or multi-family homes or vertically integrated buildings containing residential
units over office and/or commercial uses. Because of the increased residential density in
this area, it is important that recreational amenities be provided for residents.
Freestanding residential structures, in particular, should contain recreational facilities such
as spas, swimming pools, basketbail courts, and weight rooms. These facilities may be
provided within buildings or, if provided outside, may be arranged in interior courtyards
or in walled-in enclosures in interior parking lots. Special consideration should be given
to locating facilities with respect to the noise, activity, and light that they will generate.
III,36'~
iFridoy June 3# 199~ 11:TSam ~- Page 3i
JlJ,4-83-199~ 19:14 ~ 'rIB PLC~4~ING
TO 19896946477 P,83
fi*eesm,al-Smuld-fsuily
with inteft'~ntiyed iamzidng
~c-,fmstitmioml
uses (VP) vAth optioual
zesidcmial on upper stary
Freesta~m,~ Residential Bufidlngs & Vertically Integrated Buildings
('Residential Over Com-~m~d/Oftke Uses) with Recreational Facilities
4) PaHdnF
Limited on-street paxiing my be provide! in Yl,,m,;ng Azea 1, pnrlk,dmty along ~
"Mn{, Street." On-smut parking sps:es are inlnxkd f~ people pm~;.~ en, mxls snd s~
them for longer than an hour or two. Psting lots should be plsced in the interior of
individual parcels so that the appearance of the d~velopment fxom the meet is of
buildings and p~---% not lmm't'i,,S lots (scc Rgm-e 12B). These inl~-ficr paztHn~ lots ar~
intended for "long term" psking,
The parking facilities should not be 'tlz dominant visual imag~ of th~ p~,~ject. Vas~
expans~ of paving for parking, without ti= visual xv, lief of landscaping are highly
discouraged. Joint-lnrking arnmgem~ts bctwccn comme*tciak of Dce, and instih,tiorad
USes ~ cDcouzaged iO minlmi?,~ tile umber of parking spaccs required to sa*ve time
development and avoid prolifm'sXion of parking lots. In nAa;fion, comple~ly separa~
paddng arcas should be p~ovided for residences.
Incentives for Innovative Design
Up to 300 multi-family dwHlin~ can be ezmmc2~ in ~ plnnning ~ tO provide housing
opportunities for employees of the various businto W~fhln the Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan. Conversely, the planned commercial uses will e~able v~vject
residents to do their shoppinS by fo~. Tee mixtree of residential and non-msidemld land
uses are design~ to decease th~ traffic genent2d by project development.
m-3 _
6)
The pedestrian scale of the project will be enhanced by plazas, courtyards, sidewalk cafes,
public mini-parks, pedestrian easements, and overall project landscaping. Pedestrian
linkages will be provided between uses within Planning Area i and between Planning
Area 1 and the larger retail uses in Planning Area 2.
Retail and service commercial uses could predominate on the first floor of the buildings,
with offices and/or residential uses concentrated on the upper floors or behind the
commercial uses. Vertically-integrated buildings offer the opportunity to provide
affordable housing.
Pedestrian-Oriented Design
The small size of Planning Area 1 will encourage pedestrian movement between uses,
while de-emphasizing automobile use. Retail uses are encouraged on street level to
provided streetscape contiguity and visual interest for pedestrians. Continuous expanses
of blank walls or sharp unbroken vertical surfaces create an uncomfortable atmosphere
for the pedestrian. The mixed use area should incorporate the following elements of good
pedestrian-oriented design:
Pedestrian Circulation: Link interior parking areas and lots to city streets, city-
wide open spaces (e.g., plazas, mini-parks, pedestrian malls, etc.) and the City's
trail system to facilitate travel by walking, biking, or other non-motorized means.
Building Facades: The design of building facades, particularly those facades that
face public streets, should be architecturally interesting and in scale with the
pedestrian. Storefront windows are encouraged in retail shops and, in most cases,
should begin within 18" to 24" of the pavement. Typically, storefront windows
help to entice customers into stores, stimulate visual interest, create "defensible
space" by enhancing public views of store interiors and streets, and establish a
predictable rhythm for passers-by. The scale and width of each storefront should
be limite.d to establish an intimate scale that is more conducive to the pedestrian
and cyclist than to the automobile. In general, storefront widths should relate to
a human scale. Where storefronts must be large to accommodate specific uses,
the building facades could be articulated with windows, insets, pillars, columns,
arcades or other decorative architectural features to maintain the overall intimacy
of the shopping street.
Signage: A coordinated signage plan for development can facilitate pedestrian
and vehicular movement throughout the planning area, without "visually
assaulting" the senses. Signage should be designed at a scale that is not
overpowering from the pedestrian's perspective. For example, small signs with a
unique texture, shape, or interesting features can be more effective than large,
massive, or glaring signs. This Temecula Regional Center Zoning Ordinance
III-38'
7)
8)
contains comprehensive signage criteria for uses within Planning Area 1 (see
Section III.C. 1. in this Specific Plan).
Streetscape Design: To encourage human activity and movement, streets should
be designed with the pedestrian in mind. Continuity in landscape design,
placement of street furniture, sitting areas, covered arcades for shelter against the
sun and inclement weather, lighting, and paving patterns all contribute to creating
a rich, functional, and aesthetically pleasing environment for pedestrians.
Pedestrian Plazas: All areas of Planning Area 1, and the Main Street in
particular, should be designed with pedestrian gathering spots and should include
plazas and pocket parks for resting, eating, conversing, and people watching.
Pedestrian plazas that are effectively placed witl~n retail and office districts can
be pleasant spaces for resting or having lunch between shopping trips or errands.
Placement of pedestrian plazas must be carefully planned to assure their most
effective use. For this mason, consideration must be given to the location of
plazas relative to the pedestrian circulation patterns, sunlight conditions, wind
patterns, and the selection of building and landscape materials.
Organization of Activities: The most important element in creating viable
pedestrian spaces has little to do with the actual physical design of the space; if
a space is to be conducive to pedestrian activity, there must be opportunities for
pedestrian events and activities. Therefore, efforts to planning and organizing
festivals, events, special sidewalk sales, entertainment, and cultural displays should
be made to help create desired pedestrian activity. Private marketing efforts
should be encouraged to promote these types of community events.
Signage
This Specific Plan includes a comprehensive signage program for the mixed use
development. The program includes retail commercial entry monumentation, building
identification signage, marquee signage, and directional signage. Although the signage
criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance in this Specific Plan includes maximum
permitted sign sizes, the individual sign that identifies a given use should be consistent
with the scale and mass of the building on which it is located or which it identifies.
Specific signage materials should be uniform throughout each individual development
within Planning Area 1.
Transit Alternatives/Options
One of the primary objectives of establishing mixed use development within the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan is the creation of a density threshold and a mixture of uses
that is capable of supporting transit alternatives to the automobile. Bus turnouts shall be
provided at appropriate locations within Planning Area 1, subject to approval by the City
III-39
IFriday June 3, 1~ i:22Fs. -- PaCe Z)
J'Lt4 C3-1994 12:19 FROH TgB Pl_lq441N~ TO ly, f36946477 P.B2
of Temecula and, if necessary, me Rivenidc Transit Agmcy. Additional transit corridOr
right-of-way adjacent to Winchester Pond on the western edge of the: planning area well
allow since fot dewJopmmt of amass URnsit system (e.g., li~t rail, e~:.) should such
asysmmeverbeconsUuct~
Vill,~e ~n~n Street Dcvclo~n~nt Area
b.
Tho Vilisg~ Ccnt~r~.t~ Stree~ concept shall apply to between 10 to IS ~ ~m~
~~1. Bl~~~m~~a~~
Plcas~ refer to Zone Ordinance No.
in Sec~on ]~C of thi. Specific Plan.
Planning Standards
1)
In compliance with th~ goals and policies of the City's Gencral Plan, Villnge CP~,^r
Overlay and I and Use Element Goal 5 -Policics 5.5 through 5.10. it is :-,portant to
czeat~ a quality environment which establishes a sense of place tilfough carefUl
considesation and inter,,,tlon of th= following design elements:
b) p~an linkage,.
c) Narrow streets and drivcways with pedcstdan paseos and wide sidewalks.
~ e)
dathering places such as pavilions, parks and bandsUmcLs. Festivals, entcrtai~
mcnt, succ( vcndon, outdoor markera and od~er special events should be
f) Incorporation of fOtll!tain~ and Watt~' bodies.
g) Uniqu~ architectural and landscape architectural themes for ide~ity.
h) Cax~.ful parking odentation.
md,0
~u$~L P,E2
IFriday dune 3, 19~. 12:10ps -- P,ge 3]
J'LH-g3-1994 11:B9 FRI~ TF.B PLq~]I~ 1D 1'~9:-.69464'?? P.B3
2)
3)
7)
AcccssintoHnnningAm 1 willbcpwvidedfronxMargadtaRoad, AlxicotAvcuucsmd
Winchestin' Road.
One (1) minor entry c~-in.~ is proposed through the Tamchester Road ~
corridor into Planning Area l. This minor C~g_,dn~ would l:)tOvick fight-Gaf!l-OlLly acce~
into this Mixed Use Planning Atca (see Figure 12A). This propo~ shall comply with
the current lVhwsorandum of Under~ana~g (MOIl) between the City of Tcmecula and
Caltrans as to the location and spacing of minor access points along W'mchester goatL
Special roadway landscape treatments, as those depicted in Figures 14, 18, and 20,
~ -,ndscape Architecture Guidelines (See. WE.) _~hnll be provided along Winches~ Road,
Mm,garita Road and Apricot Avenue.
Major EnUy Momuncntatinn as dcpicled in Figure :23, Landscape Aw, hitcchnl
Guidelines, shall be provided at the intase~ons of Winchester Road and Margaxita Road,
and Margarita Road nnd Apricot Avenut:, and along Margarita Rond and Wim~heste~'
Road.
Avenue.
Hcasc gfgr w Sec. IV. for Specific Dcsign C, uicklincs and othu w!n_r__,.,4 design criter~
Please refer to Sec. I!I.A. for the following Development P~a..~ and Slandatds that apply
site-wide:
TIT_A.I - Specific T ..wnd Use Plan
IKA_2 - Ciwulation Plan
lEA.3 - Drainage Plan
IEA.4 - Water and Sewer Plans
Ifi_A_5 - Project Phasing Plap
mA.6 - Grading Plan
]]LA.7 - I~,n~capillg ~
IILA.8 - IA~inrPx~nPe Plan
III-41
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 4
CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM PHASING PLAN
DRAFT
ADDENDUM EIR
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
RECEIVED
dAN 0 8 ~993
Gift OF TEMECULA
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
EIR NO. 348
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
(714) 694-6400
Prepared By:
Douglas Wood & Associates
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan
Findings of the traffic analysis indicate that, at projected build-out of the three Kernper/Bedford
projects substantial roadway improvements will be needed in the study area. It is important to
recognize that principal roadway improvements which comprise the planned City of Temecula
Circulation Element will be needed in the future whether or not the proposed projects are
implemented- Although these new and improved roadway facilities would be serving the immediate
access needs of these proposed projects and other numerous planned development projects within
the study area, most of the improvements would also play an important role in serving the general
circulation needs of the Temecula commercial core area which straddles the 1-15 corridor. Some of
the improvements (e.g. Winchester Road - S.tL 79 widening and 1-15/Winchester Road interchange
reconstruction) would even serve future regional circulation needs.
The intent of the 'conceptual circulation system phasing plan' developed in this study is to present
a logical implementation sequence for the construction of needed area-wide roadway improvements
which also considers the proposed phasing plan for the proposed Kernper/Bedford projects. It should
be noted that project build-out (assumed Year 2000) roadway needs have essentially been based on
full development (build-out) of all land uses within the immediate study area.
The market driven implementation rate of major development projects in the area will have very
strong influence on the timing of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development
projects are implemented, they will require access. Many of the phased roadway improvements
suggested in this plan are intended to provide for those local access needs and at the same time work
towards completing the ultimate area-wide circulation network In some cases, the phased
improvement is over-designed for the anticipated local development access needs but considers
ultimate needs and the desire to minimize future construction impacts related to phased widenings
(e.g., initially building two lanes and the widening to four lanes at the later date). The assessment
of financing/implementation responsibilities for area-wide roadway improvements should consider that
the key elements of the ptadned circulation system (including the Overland overpass, Data Street
overpass, and Winchester Interchange improvements) will be n,'e~ed even if proposed
Kernper/Bedford development projects are not implemented.
Since it is more difficult to predict the rate and pattern of long-ten (5 to 10 years) development
than shon-terra (1 to 5 year~) development, it should be recognized that the actual roadway needs
for implementation perioe5 beyond 5 years could vary significantly from the conceptual plan
presented in this study. It is also important to consider that many of the roadway improvements
identified would involve a multi-jurisdiction/agency review and coordination process which could
impact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein.
Anticipated Project Development Phasing - Project phasing assumed in this analysis is based on the
Project Phasing Plan presented in the individual Specific Plan documents. Sue to changing market
strategies, these phasing plans have been developed as a 'guideline" only for City rev/ew and
monitoring. Future market demands may dictate varying approaches to phasing which could alter the
currently expected rate and/or sequence of project implementation. Project Phasing Plan assumptions
are illustrated in Figures 4, 11, and 18 for the Temecula Regional center, Winchester Hills, and
Camps Verdes projects respectively. A more detailed breakdown of project phasing assumptions
including anticipated development status and corresponding trip generation (both incremental and
cumulative) by six analysis time periods is presented for each Kernper/Bedford project in Tables 1
through 3.
Anticipated Background Development - In order to analyze roadway system implementation phasing
needs, it was necessary to make general assumptions regarding the rate and location of other area
development. For the purposes of this assessment it was assumed that other area development would
build-out at a constant rate over the next eight years and in a manner which would evenly distribute
the new development throughout the study area.
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing - Results of the circulation system phasing assessment are
presented in Figures 5 through 10 (Teme~ula Regional Center), Figures 12 through 17 (Winchester
Hills), and Figures 19' through 24 (Campos Vcrdes). It should be noted that the Conceptual
CircuJation System Phasing Plan is identical for each of the three projects. Tne individual phasing
plans differ only in terms of the specific project development status and the corresponding cumulative
project trip generation given for each implementation period.
Our approach in preparing the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan included planning level
asse,~.srnents which focused on the immediate access needs of each project as well as capacity of key
congestion 'bottle necks" such as the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection and Winchester
Road/I-15 interchange. The proposed roadway improvement implementation sequence has been
formulated to provide incremental stages of relief to these congestion prone areas. Additionally,
A~sessment District 161 and Community Facilities District 88-12 have been considered in the
development of the Phasing Plan.
It Ls important to recognize that the Conceptual Circulation systems Phasing Plan presented heroin
does not imply that the indMdual Kernper/Bedford projects would be responsible for implementing
the roadway improvement needs identified in the Conceptual Phasing Plan. At the same time, it also
needs to be recognized that the rate at which projects in the study area are permitted to develop
should be c~rrelated to the circulation systems' ability to adequately ac. Eommedate the traffic which
these projects will generate.
10
As pan of our roadway phasing asses.sment, we have identifie.~ a number of improvements which are
currently anticipated to be critical (either directly or indirectly) to the development of the individual
Kernper/Bedford projects. This does not suggest that the identified improvement,' but rather the
timely implementation of the identified improvement would influence the status of traffic congest/on
in the area. The resulting congestion levels could influence the City's ability to issue building p~rmits.
Temecula Regional Center (Refer to Figure 5 through 10)
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solaria Way to Winchester
Road.
Ynez Road widening from project boundary south to Rancho California Road.
Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
New signal installations on Winchester Road to Margarita Road, Nicolas Road, and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Projected 1994 to 1995 Implementation Period:
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Four-lane widening of Mirgarita Road from Solana Way to Wi.nchester Road.
New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Winchester Road at Temecula Regional Center access
roa~.
On-site circulation system improvements/access connections.
Projected 1995 to 1996 Implementation Period Winchezter Road interchange ramp improvements.
Two-lane interim Ynez Road/Jac~on Avenue extension to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Projected 1996 to 1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpa.~ widening.
New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and Sate Street.
new signal installation on Margarita Road at Date Street.
Two-lane extension of General Kearney Road easterly to Nicolas Road.
Projected 1998 to 1999 Implementation Period:
Date Street overpa..~ improvements.
Projected 1999 to 2000 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road widening between 1-15 and Ynez Road.
Jackson Avenue widening from the Temecula City limit to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Winchester Hills ('Refer to Figures 12 through 17)
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation period:
Four-lane widening of Margarita Road fxom Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road.
' Two:lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester
Road.
Four-lane extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment.
On-site loop street and connector street improvements ~s depicted in Figure 12.
Widening of Jefferson Avenue from Date Street to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road.
New signal installation on Winchester Road at Margafita and Mur~eta Hot Springs
Road intersections.
Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Date Street west of Ynez Road.
Four-lane improvement of Date Street from Margafita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Widening of Margarita Road from Solaria Way to Winchester Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period:
Six-lane and two-lane interim improvement on Date Street as depicted n Figure 14.
Four-lane off-site and m-lane interim off-site improvement of Ynez Road/Jackson
Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
On-site loop street and connector street improvements as illustrated in Figure 14.
Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margarita Road, Ynez Road/Project Connector
Street, and Date Street,tYnez Road intersections.
New signal installations at Date Street/Mun-ieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita
Road/Project Connector Street intersections.
Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements.
Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road interchange 9verpass widening.
Date Street widening from Lincoln to Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Date Street at Ynez Road, Lincoln and Margarita Road
intersections.
New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and the Project
Connector Street intersections.
Projected 1998-1999 Implementation Period:
Construction of the Date Street overpass and installation of new signals on Date
Street at Madison Avenue and the Business Park access street.
New signal installation at Jackson Avenue/North Business Park acxt. ss street. - '
Projected 1999-2000 Implementation Period:
Widening of Jackson Avenue between the City limit and Murrieta Hot Springs Road,
Campos Verdes
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester
Road.
Four-lane improvement of General keamey Road from the new Margarita Road
alignment to the easterly project limits.
Solana Way widening between Ynez Road and Marga~ta Road,
Ynez Road widening from the Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road.
Winchester Road widen/ng from Marga~ta Road to Mutrieta Hot Springs Road,
New signal installations on Margarita Road at Winchester Road and Solana .Way.
Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period:
Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Margafita.
New signal installation at intersection of Margafita Road and General Kearuey Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchang~ ramp improvements.
New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and Campos Verdes acce~
road.
Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening.
Two-lane General Kearney Road extension from easterly project limits to Nicolas
Road.
Projected 1998-2000 Implementation Period:
(No system improvements assessed to be critical to the development of Campos
Verdes.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
The formulation of recommended mitigation measures for the three Kernper/Bedford urban core
projects has been based on a number factors including:.
1. Endings of the original traffic impact studies prepared for the projects;
2. Findings of the project-related traffic utilization analysis of planned area roadway system
capacity; and
3. Endings of the conceptual circulation system phasing analysis.
Assessments of area roadway capacity utilization reveal that cumulative project traffic impacts are
wide-spread but vary significantly in terms of magnitude. Furthermore this analysis also reveals that
project trips are comprised of a combination of new trips and diverted trips. New trips consist of
those project trips which would clearly be added to roadway network such as those vehicle trips which
would have one end of the trip within the project and one end outside of the study area. Diverted
trips describe those project-related trips on are? roadways which result h'om the interaction of land
uses within the projects and other local area land uses (both existing and planned). With diverted
· trips, the associated tra~c impacts can not be defined as the responsibility of the projects under study
since the opposite end of these trips, in effect, is being generated by other area land uses. At best
the impacts of these trips could be assessed as the responsibility of the land use which is closest to
the location where the impact occurs. It would not be equitable for the Kernper/Bedford projects
to assume full respons~ility for the impact of these diverted trips since elimination of the
Kemper/'Bedford projects would not eliminate the land uses which are generating the opposite ends
of these trips. Without the Kernper/Bedford projects these trips would essentially be re, distributed
to interact with other local or regional development. ..
In terms of the dispersion of project related traffic impacts (e.g. roadway capacity util~,ation), it is
not practical to assess widespread roadway implementation cost responsibilities when "fair share'
a~sessments represent very small portions of the cost to implement individual roadway improvements.
The approach taken in this assessment is one which recognizes the cumulative impacts over a
widespread area and concentrates an equivalent mitigation effort in a strategic and more effective
Recommended mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kernper/Bedford
projects are summarized below:
.1. 50 percent implementation respons~ility for Jackson Avenue from the Temecula/Murrieta
City limits to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Wincl~ester Hills is assessed 90 percent of the mitigation.
· Temecula Regional Center is assess 10 percent of the Mitigation.
2. 16.6 percent or 1/6th implementation respoas~ility for the Date Street overpass.
Winchester HilLs is assessed 100 percent of the mitigation.
3. 28 percent implementation responsibility for the Winchester Road interchange overpass
widening and currently planned ramp widenings.
Winchester HilLs is assessed 17 percent of the mitigation.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed 80 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Verdes is assessed 3 percent of the mitigation.
5 percent implementation responsibility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement
(Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road).
· Tem~ula Regional Center is a.sse,~ed 60 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Vetdes is nssessed 40 percent of the mitigation.
15 percent implementation responsibility for the Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive
to Rancho California Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is a.~essed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
Winchester HiLLs is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verde~ is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16.6 percent implementation responsibility for the Wincheste! Road widening from Margarita
Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 90 percent of the mitigation.
Winchester HilLs is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
25 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Solann Way to Winchester Road.
· Tnme~ula Regional Center is assessed with 65 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Vetdes is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation.
8. 15per~entimp~ementati~nresponsibilityf~rthef~ur~~aneMargafitaR~adimpr~vementfrom
Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 35 percent of the mitigation..
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
25 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane Ynez Road improvement
from its present terminus at Equity Drive to the TemeculaLMurrieta City limits.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation.
10. 16.6 percent of the implementation responsibility for the six-lane Date Street improvement
from the 1-15 overpass structure to Margarita Road.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation.
11. 13 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane Date Street improvement
from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Winchester Hills is messed with 100 percent of the mitigation.
12. 25 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane improvement of Overland
Drive from Ynez Road to Margarita Road.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is a.ssessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
13. 30 percent of the implementation responsibility for four-lane improvements responsibility for
four-lane improvement of General Kearney Road from Margafita Road to the easterly
Campos Vetdes project boundary.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
14. 15 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane improvement of General
Kearney Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 85 percent of the mitigation.
· Cempos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16
15. 10 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the widening of Solana Way 'from Ynez
Road to Margarita Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.
16. 5 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road
from Date Street to Canyon Drive.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
17. Signal system implementation responsibilities would be as indication below.
a) 100 percent responsibility for on-site signals within the Winchester Hitt~ project including:
· Date Street signals at Business Park Access Street, Ynez Road, Lincoln, and
Margarita Road;
· Ynez Road signals at Business Park Ac. ct_~ Street, and Loop Road Connector Street
(near Equity Drive); and
· Margarita Road signal at southerly Loop Road Connector Street.
b) 100 percent respons~ility for Temecula Regional Center project perimeter access signals
including:
· Winchester Road signal at westerly Regional Center Access Road;
Overland Drive signal at Regional Center Access Road; and
Existing regional modification costs at Palm Plaza Access and Costco Center Access.
c) 100 percent respons~ility for Campos Verdes Access signals on Margarita Road at
General Kearney Road and Campos Verdes Access Street.
d) 50 percent respons~ility for signals located at the following intex;sections: · Margarita Road/Winchester Road;
· Margafita Road/Ove~and Drive; and
· Ynez Road/Overland Drive.
e)
25 percent respons~ility for the signal installations at:
Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and
· Margafita Road/Solana Way.
It is important to note that the implementation respons~ilities detailed herein do not take into
account Kemper/Bedfords contributions toward A.s~essment District 161 and Community Facilities
District 88-12 which together address many of the improvements included in the refined
recommended mitigation measures. Kernper/Bedford should be given credit where appropriate for
assessments involving the project properties and roadway improvements included in the 161 and 88-12
districts. Credits should also be considered for right.of-way dedications involving the recommended
street improvements.
In addition to the above listed mitigation measures, the individual Kemper/Bedford projects would
be respons~le for implementing all on-site project street hnprovements which have not already been
discussed. Individual project mitigation would also include preparation of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Programs which meet the requirements of the City's 'soon to be adopted" TDM
ordinance. Please not thai ~he Winchester Hills project, as part of its' mitigation program, has
reserved an easement along the 1-15 property frontage for a potential future collector-distributor
road/interchange system involving Date Street.
0
o
IA
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ATTACHMENT "A", MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR NO. 340
ATFACHMENT
Mitigation Monitoring Program
EIR No. 340, Specific Plan No. 263
The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan has been assigned by the Traffic Engineer the
following percentage utilization of a percentage implementation responsibility for the off-site
circulation improvements noted below. This implementation responsibility for the provision of
off-site roadway improvements is intended to mitigat~ the project's portion of cumulative traffic
impacts. These improvements and the project's implementation responsibility are listed below:
Improvement
1. Construction of Jackson Avenue from the
Temecula]Murrieta City Limits to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road
2. Winchester Road interchange overpass
widening and curren~y planned ramp widenings
3. Overland Drive overpass improvement
(lefferson Avenue to Ynez Road)
4. Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive to
Rancho California Road
Implementation
Responsibility Assigned to
Temecula Regional Center
5.00%
22,40%
3.00%
10.50%
5. Winchester Road widening from Margarita
Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
6. Four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Solana Way to Winchester Road
7. Four-lane Marga~ita Road improvement from
Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
8. Four-lane Ynez Road improvement from its
present terminus at Equity Drive to the
Temecula/Murrieta City limits
9. Four-lane Overland Drive improvement from
Ynez Road to Margarita Road
10 Four-lane improvement of General Kearny
Road from Margarita Road to the easterly
Campos Verdes project boundary
11 General Kearny from easterly project limit to
Nicolas Road
16.94%
16.25%
5.25%
5.00%
20.00%
9.00%
12.75%
R:~8~STAI~T~2d3PP.IdI~d 6/2/~ vlw 78
Improvement
12 Widening of Solana Way from Ynez Road to
Margaxita Road
13 Widening of Murriem Hot Springs Road from
Date Street to Canyon Drive
14 Project perimeter access signals on Winchester
Road, Overland Drive, the Palm phn access
and Costco Center access
15
16
Signals at the intersections of: Margarita
Road/Winchester Road, Margarita
Road/Overland Drive and Ynez Road/Overland
Drive
Implementation
Responsibility Assigned to
Temecula Regional Center
4.50~
1.50%
100.00%
50.00%*
Signals at the intersections of Jackson 25.00%*
Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and
Margarita Road/Solana Road
This percentage implementation responsibility relates to all three Urban Core projects.
Specific percentage responsibility by project is not available.
A'I'I*ACHMENT NO. 6
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Le:i I ER, APRIL 18, 1994
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERfNTENDENT
' ' Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D
April 18, 1994
Steve Jiannino
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Ternecula Regional Center Specific Plan Conditions
Dear Mr. Jiannino:
The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the proposed Specific
Plan presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994.
· School Facilities Mitigation Agreement
The proposed development includes the potential for 300 multi-family residential units, generating
approximately 192 students, as follows:
# of students
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Elementary School: 84
Middle School: 57
High School: 51
Total 192
This number is lower than the number of 240 students included in the February 1, 1994 Draft Temecula Regional Center
EIR.
Prior to Specific Plan approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School
District to ensure adequate facilities for these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General
Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program.
Section V D,E of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School
District infcrmatiGn as indicated in ths attachment.
If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340.
Dave Gallaher
Director of Facilities Development
co: Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent
John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
Lettie Boggs, Coordinator of Facilities Planning
Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst
Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc.
{FACCO~qITRCSP~CP.LAN)
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Ternecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
April 18, 1994
T.R.C. Specific Plan Conditions
Section V D.5
(TVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/18/94)
SCHOOLS
a. Existing7 Conditions
The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The
District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5} schools, two middle (grades 6-8) schools and two high (grades 9-12) schools.
The attached Table, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent
building capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are
operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommodate the
overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed.
b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship
The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation.
· Attached Dwell(no Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit
· Detached Dwell(n{3 Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.39; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 -0.25 students per unit
The proposed 300 multi-family residential units located within the "mixed-use' commercial area on-site could potentially generate
approximately 192 students (utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned above). As no school facilities are proposed within the project
boundaries, the estimated 192 students generated by the Temecula Regional Center would require accommodation off-site. As
previously mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building capacity. The additional students
generated by this project will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted.
It should be noted that the 300 multi-family residential units are intended to be located over commercial and office uses as
residential flats. Generally, this type of housing does not attract as many families with school aged children as is reflected in the
student generation data from other types of attached dwelling units, The estimated 192 students associates with the project
portray a 'worst-case' scenario. It is anticipated that the number of students generated by the project may be lower than the 192
total.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. The City General
Plan adopted in October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts.
c. Genera/Plan Implementation Prowlram
In accordance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact
of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District,
prior to Specific Plan approvals. The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following financing mechanisms:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Payment of school fees
Dedication of land and/or facilities
Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District
Levying of a special tax
Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District
Level of Si~Tnificance After Mitioation
Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an
~nsignificant level.
C O.
O:
O!
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 6, 1994
Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes)
Environmental Impact Report No. 348
Change of Zone No. 5617
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94-
certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348
for Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 5617
and;
APPLICATION INFORMATION
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94-
approving Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone ~'~.
5617, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICANT:
KRDC, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
T&B Planning Consultants
PROPOSAL:
A Specific Plan consisting of: 308 single-family residential units,
19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8 acre
detention basin, ~ 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary
school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways with an
accompanying Change of Zone request from R-R (Rural
Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot
size) to SP (Specific Plan No. 1 ). Environmental Impact Report
No. 348 has been prepared for the project and discusses the
potential impacts of the project.
LOCATION:
South of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential), A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size)
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP. PC3 6/3/94 klb
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and R-
R (Rural Residential)
A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size)
SP (Specific Plan No. 164, Roripaugh Hills)
A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size), R-R (Rural Residential)
PROPOSED ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan No. 1 )
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
CC (Community Commercial)
O (Professional Office)
H (High Density, 13-20 du/ac)
M (Medium Density, 7-12 du/ac)
LM (Low Medium Density, 3-6 du/ac)
OS (Open Space/Recreation)
Specific Plan Overlay
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Winchester Road, Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Residential
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Gross Acreage: 132.9 Acres
Single-Family Residential 308 Units
Commercial\Office\Church
19.8 Acres
Detention Basin 5.8 Acres
Park 10.8 Acres
Elementary School
On-Site Roadways
10.7 Acres
13.0 Acres
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5617, and Environmental Impact Report No. 348
were continued from the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project proposes a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on 132.9
acres. The project site is located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road. The
General Plan designates the area as a Specific Plan overlay area. The underlying land use
designations of the General Plan consist of Community Commercial, Professional Office, High
Density Residential, Medium Density Residc,'.tial, Low Medium Density, and Open
R:~STAFFRPTXISp. PC3 613194 klb 2
Space/Recreation. The Specific Plan document contains the zoning design standards for each
area. The proposed zoning and development standards contained within the Specific Plan
document will govern development for this site over the City's Development Code unless it
is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance.
The Specific Plan was amended for the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The
Plan now being proposed for the site is shown in Table 1.
LAND USE DESIGNATION
RESIDENTIAL
Low
(.5 to 2 DU/AC)
Low Medium
(3 to 6 DU/AC)
SUBTOTAL
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial
Commercial/Office/Church
and Detention~
Elementary School
Park
Roads
SUBTOTAL
PROJECT TOTAL
TABLE 1
PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY
AREA (DU/AC) UNITS ACRES
9 1.1 18 16.0
3 6.3 76 12.0
5 5.2 86 16.5
6 5.9 72 12.3
8 3.5 56 15.9
4.2 308 72.7
4 12.0
2 13.7
7 10.7
1 10.8
13.0
60.2
2.3 308 132.9
~ Approximately 7.8 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/office uses
adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.9 acres shall include a landscaped
detention basin. No park credits will be given for the detention basin by the City.
ANALYSIS
Circulation
At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting it was the consensus of the Commission
to recommend the extension of either Sanderl~P3 Way, Starling Street or both. Staff has
R:~STAFFRPT\ISP.PC3 613194 klb 3
received approximately 154 "Referendum Ballots" from the Roripaugh Homeowner's
Association expressing their opinions on the potential extension of Sanderling Way and
Starling Street. Of the 154 ballots received, 130 homeowners were opposed to the streets
being opened, but if one street needed to be opened for public safety reasons, 90
homeowners favored opening Starling Street and forty (40} favored opening Sanderling Way.
Of these 40 homeowners, 17 live on Starling Street. Of the total number of homeowners
responding, 22 were opposed to any street being opened and 2 favored the streets being
opened. It is staff's opinion that at least one street should be opened to provide for a better
emergency response time to the Roripaugh development, as well as improve local traffic
circulation and discourage an increase in the number of Average Daily Trips on Winchester
Road. Staff supports the opening of Starling Street.
Landscape Development Zone (LDZ)
The provision for a 37 foot Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road was
discussed at the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant stated he would
provide this 37 foot LDZ. The Final Campos Verdes Specific Plan will contain an exhibit that
illustrates this LDZ.
Traffic ImProvements
At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission, staff requested Commission direction on a
number of traffic improvements. The Public Works Department proposes the following:
That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain regional
improvements as detailed in the Conditions of Approval in exchange for "setting aside"
the project implementation responsibility for other regional facilities listed in
Attachment "A" to the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
That this Specific Plan be required to support either supplemental bond sales or district
restructuring and supplemental bond sales as detailed in the Conditions of Approval
which provide for the regional facilities listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and
the EIR.
That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain facilities within
and adjacent to the project as detailed in the Conditions of Approval.
The timing for these facility requirements may be further defined through the
conditioning of subsequent development applications and the requisite phasing
application.
A typical section be added to the Specific Plan for the primary onsite circulation
road(s}.
School Mitiqation
The Temecula Unified School District is requesting the developer sign a mitigation agreement
with the District prior to Specific Plan approval. The mitigation proposed in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program prepared for the project states, "the project applicant shall enter into a
binding agreement with the Temecula Unified,School District to insure the provision of
R:~STAFFRPT~ISP. PC3 6/3/94 k.lb 4
adequate facilities prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects
and prior to recordation of the final map for residential projects." This continues to be an
issue with the School District. Staff has conditioned the Specific Plan to comply with the
mitigation proposed in the EIR prepared for the project.
General Plan Consistency
Staff has discussed the need for a General Plan Amendment with the applicant. Staff will
proceed with initiating this amendment. The City Attorney has recommended a condition of
approval that states that approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan is contingent upon the
General Plan Amendment being approved by the City Council, and the Environmental Impact
Report being certified by the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DE'I'ERMINATION
An initial study was completed for the project which indicated that there would be potentially
significant impacts associated with the development of the project. Consequently, it was
determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project.
Environmental Impact Report No. 348 was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas
Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report
analyzed the significance of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures included in the
Final EIR that reduced these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of the
following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services. Statements of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the EIR, two addenda
were prepared for the project. The first addendure analyzed new technical information on
traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding which resulted in additional mitigation measures which
were incorporated into the Final EIR. The second addendum analyzed the impacts of the
revision in the Specific Plan Land Use Plan which resulted from the public hearing process and
reduced the density and intensity of the project. These two addenda did not raise important
new issues about the significance of the impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends
Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348 which includes the Draft EIR,
the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Considerations.
GENERAL PLAN\ZONING CONSISTENCY
As a result of public controversy, the applicant has removed all multiple family residential from
the project. This has resulted in an inconsistency with the City's General Plan. The City will
initiate a General Plan Amendment to bring the Specific Plan into conformance with the
General Plan. The Specific Plan's approval is contingent upon the approval of both the General
Plan Amendment and the Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Change of Zone
No. 5617 proposes to change the zoning on the site from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
(Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to S-P (Specific Plan). Upon City Council adoption of
this Change of Zone, the project will be consistent with the zoning on the site.
SUMMARY\CONCLUSIONS
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan has been revised to address resident, staff, and Commission
concerns relative to the project. Concerns relativo to buffering have been addressed through
R:\STAFFRP'I~ISP. PC3 613194 ?tAb
the following: the elimination of all high density residential on the site and the creation of a
forty (40) foot buffer between the project and the Meadowview development. This reduction
in overall density has resulted in the need for an Addendum to the EIR which has been
prepared. Impacts associated with the revised Specific Plan are less or the same as those
associated with the original project.
FINDINGS
Soecific Plan No. 1
Specific Plan No. 1 will be consistent with the City's General Plan upon adoption of a
City initiated General Plan Amendment, and upon Council certification of Environmental
Impact Report 348.
Specific Plan No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses which are residential and
commercial. The Specific Plan provides for 1 \2 acre lots adjacent to the Meadowview
development which provides for an adequate transition.
Specific Plan No. I will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area.
Environmental Impact Report 348 was prepared for the Specific Plan. No immediate
impacts to the environment will result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts
from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements
of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the following: Seismic Safety,
Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and
Utilities and Services.
Specific Plan No. 1 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs
contained in the General Plan.
Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Chanqe of Zone 5617
Change of Zone 5617 will not have a significsnt adverse effect on the environment as
determined in Environmental Impact Report 348 prepared for the project. No
immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan
(SP). Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than
significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the
following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture,
Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services.
2. Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan.
Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan.
R:\STAFFRPT~ISP.PC'J 6/3/~ kJb 6
The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses
currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel is of
adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed potential
access points to the site will be from Winchester and Margarita Roads. Additional
internal access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and
constructed in conformance with City of Temecula standards.
Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Environmental linDact Reoort
Reference Attachment No. 9.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 8
2. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 13
3. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 16
4. Exhibits - Blue Page 29
A. Figure IV - 26A - Meadowview Buffer Exhibit
5. Revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan - Summary of Changes - Blue Page 30
6. First Addendum to EIR - Blue Page 31
7. Second Addendum to EIR - Blue Page 32
8. Responses to Public Comments - Blue Page 33
9. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - Blue Page 34
10. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 35
11. Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan - Blue Page 36
12. Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, April 18, 1994 - Blue Page 37
13. Meadowview Letter of Support - Blue P~ge 38
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
PROPOSING 308 SINGLF. FAIV!ILY RESIDENTIAL UNTrS, 19.8 ACRES
OF COMMk'RCIAL\OFFICE\CHURCH USES, A 5.8 ACRE DETENTION
BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE I~.LEMENTARY SCHOOL,
13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE ROADWAYS, DEV'I,.I.OPMENT PLANS AND
STANDARDS, PLANNING AREA DEVELOPlVP;.NT STANDARDS,
DESIGN GUH)F-LINES AND ZONING ORDINANCE; APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617 TO CHANGE ~ ZONING PROM R-R
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HI~.AVY AGRICULTURAL, 20
ACRE MINIMUM LOT Slzi~.) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN); PROJECT IS
LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCFFF. SIY_,R ROAD ,a2wlI) EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD.
WItF~REAS, Ic, RDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 5617 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WltF. REAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WI~.REAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on June 6, 1994, at
which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said applications;
NOW, TI:!t. REFORE, ~ PLANNING CO1VIMIRSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the following findings, to wit:
Specific Plan No. 1
1. Specific Plan No. 1 will be consistent with the City's General Plan upon
adoption of a City initiated General Plan Amendment, and upon Council certification of
Environmental Impact Report 348. ~
2. Specific Plan No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses which are
residential and commercial. The Specific Plan provides for 1~2 acre lots adjacent to the
Meadowview development which provides for a consistent transition.
3. Specific Plan No. 1 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding
property, because it does not p~,'present a significant change to the planned land use of the area.
EnvLronmental Impact Report 348 was prepared for the Specific Phn. No immediate impacts
to the environment will result from the adoption of the Spec'LF~c Plan. Impacts from future
development can be mitigated to a level.less than significant. Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been pEt}ared for the following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air
Quality, Agriculture, Wlidlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services.
4. Specific Plan No. 1 is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation programs contained in the General Plan.
5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and here'm incorporated by reference.
Change of Zone 5617
1. Change of Zone 5617 will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment as determined in Environmental Impact Report 348 prepared for the project. No
immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP).
Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements
of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the following: Seismic Safety, Noise,
Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and
Services.
Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the City of Temecula General
Plan.
3. Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation programs contained in the General Plan.
4. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel
is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use, Landscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
5. Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed
potential access po'mts to the site will be from Winchester and Margarita Roads. Additional
internal access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed in
conformance with City of Temecuia standards.
6. Said findings are supported:b.:y analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
R:\STAFFRFBISp. I~I 6/3/94 lab ~ 0
B. As condi~oned purSunnt tO Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the said
applications which indicated that there would be poten~i3ny significant impacts with the
development of the project. Consequen~y, it was determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary for the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 348 was prepared
by the applicant's consultant, Dougias Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City
staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the signfficance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the final EIR that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Q~mlity, Wildlife
and Vegetation, Circulation and Utilities and Service for which Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations have been included within the final EIR. Subsequent to
preparation of the EIR two addenda were prepared for the project. The fwst, analyzed new
technical information on tmf~c/circuiation and drainage/flooding which resulted in additional
mitigation measures which were incorporated into the F~R. The second addendure was
prepared to analyze the impacts of the a revision in the specific plan Land Use Plan which
resulted from the public hearing process and reduced the density and intensity of the project.
These two addenda did not raise important new issues about the significance of the impacts of
the project. Therefore, staff recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 348 which includes the Draft EIR , the Response to Comments, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Staff
Report and any associated attachments, and finds that it has been completed in compliance with
the California Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone 5617 located south of
Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road.
A. Attachment No. 3, attached hereto.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I !~,lH~.Ry CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of June
1994 by the following vote of the Cormmission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONF, RS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:~STAFFIIPI~ISp. PC3 6/3/94 klb '[ 2
A"r"FACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING ~ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 348 ALONG WITH ITS TWO SUBSEQUENT ADDENDA,
AllOFFING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING ~ MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOU'I~ OF WINCtlESTER ROAD
AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 921-090-001 TIIROUGH 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046, 911-
170-004 AND 910-170-00&
WffEREAS, Douglas Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report
No. 348 in accordance with the City of Temecula and State CEQA Guidelines;
WTIEREAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WltEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said RIR on June 4, 1994, at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WltEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission heating, the Planning
Commission recommended Certification of the said glR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, TI-IRP,.EFORE, ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETER_MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecuh Planning Commission in recommending
Certification of the proposed FmR, makes the following findings, to wit:
A. Attachment 9 of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends certification of FEIR No. 348 and its subsequent addenda, adopts Findings of Fact
and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for Specific Plan No. 1, located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road and
known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-090-001 through 004,921-090-017, 910-130-046, 911-170-
004 and 910-170-005.
R:~TAFFRPTXlSp. PC3 6~/94 kro ]4
Seaion 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I B'ERERy CERTWY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of June,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONF_2~:
GARY THORNI-IH,I,
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes)
Project Description:
A Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential
units, 19.Bacres of commercial\office\churchuses, a 5.8
acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre
elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
921-090-001 through 004, 921-090-017,910-130-046,
911-170-004and 910-170-005
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00)
fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3)
plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City
to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section
21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Conditions
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Specific Plan No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify
the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform
with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific
Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the
time entitlement is required. ~-,,
R:\STAFFRPT~ISp.]~3 6/3/94 klb 17
10.
11,
12.
13.
14.
Approval of Specific Plan No. 1, Campos Verdes, is contingent upon and shall not
become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved
by the City Council and an Environmental Impact Report or any other environmental
review under the provisions of the California Quality Act are certified by the City
Council.
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 348 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Prior to issuance of grading permits. approval of development permits, recordation of
final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any
subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage
of development that permits are being issued for.
Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading permits, all permit requirements necessary
for altering the existing on-site blue line stream shall be completed.
The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor,
along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on
all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps.
Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within the site, a detailed design
manual for any commercial area within the Specific Plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission.
Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific
Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all
conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City
Council. A master print copy (8 ~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall
be submitted.
Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive
appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on
project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the
City Engineer.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for
maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter
removal.
The developer shall provide pedestrian access to the Commercial site (Planning Area
4) from the residential area to the east (Planning Area 5).
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. ~.,
R:\STAFI[rRF~ISP.PC3 6B/94 ~b 18
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15.
Prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior
to recordation of the final map for residential projects, the project applicant shall enter
into a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District
to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan.
16.
If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer
made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions
enumerated herein shall take precedence.
17.
Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review
by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance
with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may
have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed
amendment is submitted.
18. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
General Conditions
19.
All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the
project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site
(except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
20.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department
of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department
of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action
contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said
correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City.
Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies
shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
21.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be
in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public
facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which
the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the
R:~STAFFRFI~ISp. IW33 6/3/~q klb 19
Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure
payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be 82.00 per square
foot, not to exceed 810,000. The Developer understands that said agreement may
require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
22.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire any offsite property interests
necessary for the provision of improvements associated with this Specific Plan and in
adherence to the K-Rat/Quimby requirements and if the Developer should fail to do so,
the Developer shall, prior to submittal of any final map for recordation, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section
66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the
Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the 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 the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the
City prior to commencement of the appraisal. Only upon Developer's initial attempt to
obtain necessary right-of-way, City shall, at Developer's expense, obtain right-of-way
via eminent domain proceedings.
23.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall
be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
24.
A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall
be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to
approval of any subsequent development application.
Circulation
25.
As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with
this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
26.
Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of
development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential,
office, and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at
the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way
at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
27.
All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and
requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and
standards. ~-'
R:\STAFFRPT~ISP. I>C3 6/31~4 Idb 20
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Ran. Location
and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside
Transportation Agency (RTA). Additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus
bays shall be provided by the Developer.
Necessary improvements have been/will be .conditioned based on the project traffic
studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific
Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning
Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development
considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing
plan approved with the adoption of the Campoe Verdes Specific Plan, as determined
by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved
administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic
Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as
set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required
by the Department of Public Works.
Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent
development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation
and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursementsshall be completed prior to
issuance of any occupancy:
Winchester Road overpass at Interstate 15 (I-15} and the interchange ramps
shall be widened and improved, respectively, along with associated additional
necessary widening and improvements to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to
Jefferson Avenue.
The traffic signals at the following intersections shall be installed/completed:
Winchester Road and Nicolas Road
Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road
The Developer is responsible to bond for and construct the traffic signals at the
project's accesses from Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road, as
required, including the associated street improvements, based on traffic signal
warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications.
A reimbursement agreement shall be executed between the Developer and the
City to reimburse the City the cost of the existing improvements along
Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road, since these
improvements mitigate the traffic requirements of the proposed development.
These improvements were provided by the City's Capital Improvement Project.
33.
The Developer shall support the Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12
supplemental bond sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from
Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue (including the I-15 overpass), in accordance
with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City°s General Plan classifying
Overland Drive as a SecoPdary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-way,
and including the traffic s~,'~ "ials at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez
Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road.
Solana Way, from Margarita Road to Ynez Road, shall be widened to Four lanes.
In the event that Solana Way is not constructed by CFD 88-12, the Developer
shall bond for and construct the improvements to Solaria Way, from Margarita
Road to Ynez Road, including a 12 foot wide raised landscaped median, in
accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan
classifying Solana Way as a Major Highway with 1 O0 foot full width right-of-
way.
Winchester Road, from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, shall be
widened to six lanes. In the event that Winchester Road is not constructed by
Assessment District lAD) 161, the Developer shall construct or bond for the
improvements to construct Winchester Road, from Margarita Road to Murrieta
Hot Springs Road, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median and
parkway improvements, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section
of City's General Plan classifying Winchester Road as an Urban Arterial
Highway with 134 foot full width right-of-way subject to a reimbursement
agreement with the City for that percentage of the improvement cost over and
above the project implementation responsibility.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the
end of the first year of development to be defined as the 100th equivalent dwelling unit
(EDU). The improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of occupancy for the
100th EDU.
Margarita Road, from Solana Way to Winchester Road, shall be widened to four
lanes. The Developer shall bond for and construct the improvements to
Margarita Road, from Solana Way to Winchester Road, including a 14 foot wide
raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross
Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway
with 110 foot full width right-of-way.
Overland Drive shall be constructed from Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue
(including the I-15 overpass), in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross
Section of City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Secondary
Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-way, and including the traffic signals
at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez Road, Jefferson Avenue, and
Margarita Road.
R:\STAFFRPT'xlSp, PC3 6/31~4 Idb 22
The Developer shall bond for and construct half street improvements plus one
lane to Overland Drive, from Margarita Road to Ynez Road, including a 12 foot
wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross
Section of City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Major Highway
with 1 O0 foot full width right-of-way.
34.
The Developer shall bond for and construct the improvements to North General Kearny
Road, from Margarita Road to easterly project limit in accordance with the Specific Plan
requirement. The cross section shall be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross
Section of City's General Plan classification for a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full
width right-of-way.
35.
The Developer is responsible to bond for and construct the traffic signals at the
intersections listed below. The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and
shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of
Public Works at the following intersections:
Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal)
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
Margarita Road and Solana Way
Margarita Road and Campos Verdes Lane
North General Kearny Road and Margarita Road
36.
The Specific Plan's percent implementation responsibility for the following
improvements per the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Monitoring Program
have been "assigned" to other improvement conditions.
Margarita Road, from the existing four lane thoroughfare to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road.
· Murrieta Hot Springs Road, from Date Street to Canyon Road.
· Winchester Road interchange improvements.
Two lane General Kearny Road extension from easterly project limit to Nicolas
Road.
Drainage
37.
Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
38.
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy
of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities.
39.
Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site
development within that phase. -~
40.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 1 O0 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
41.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility
improvements and the onsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific
Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public
Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
42.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
43.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
44.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing drainage easements.
Water and Sewer
45.
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision
or plot plan stages of the development.
46.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from
RCWD.
47..
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from
EMWD.
48.
Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any
plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate
wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan development.
Grading
49.
No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot
plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development.
R:\STAFFRPT~ISp. PC3 6/3/~4 kJb 24
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report,
or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading
permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and
standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
document.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements.
The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual
grading plan to indicate at a minimum:
· Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City
Standards and NPDES requirements.
· Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
· Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas
which will be graded during the rainy months.
· Hydrology and hydraulic concern~ and mitigations.
Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within
30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
schedule of operations
59.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic,
seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel
map for each phase of proposed development.
60.
All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting
of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading
permits.
61.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (i.e. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing
62.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate
vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and
further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and
purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
63.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with
the specifications of the Specific Plan.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) provides the following conditions for
Campos Verdes Specific Plan:
General Requirements
64.
All park facilities, slope areas, park way landscaping, trails and medians shall be
improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan
Guidelines and Specifications.
65.
Construction of the public park site, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
66.
The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park site,
landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted
by the TCSD.
R:\STAFFRFI~ISP. PC3 6/3/94 klb 26
67.
All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended for transfer to the City "in-
fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that
would preclude the City from using the property for public park and/or recreational
purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be
provided with the dedication of the property.
68.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual
property owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
69.
Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept
with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be
constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
70.
All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family
residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance
purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the
application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by and
established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
71.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the developer or his assignee shall
enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 10.8 acre park facility located
in Planning Area 1 and the detention basin in Planning Area 2.
72.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and
enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping, medians, and multi-
purpose trail identified in Planning Area 9.
73.
All parks, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians identified as TCSD
maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map.
74.
Landscape construction drawings for al! project areas (project areas may consist of
slopes, streetscape, medians, turf areas, recreational trails, and parks) identified as
TCSD maintenance areas shall be shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Services prior to recordation of the final map,
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
75.
The Park shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 78th
residential building permit for the overall project or within two (2) years of map
recordation for the first phased lots, whichever comes first.
Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
76.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most
current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project.
R:\STAFFRF~ISP, PCB 6/3/~4 Idb 27
77.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the
appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the maintenance
program.
R:\STAFFRFI~ISP.PC3 6/3/94 kib 2~
A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - SP NO. 1 (CAMPOS VERDES), EIR NO. 348, CZ NO. 5617
EXHIBIT - A FIGURE IV - 26A MEADOWVIEW BUFFER EXHIBIT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 6, 1994
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
REVISED CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
R:\STAFFRlrrXISP.PC3 613/94 klb
I T & B Planning Consultants
· Santa Ana · San Diego
RECEIVED
HAY 19 199z
lns'd ............
JN 168-044
May 18, 1994
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
Planning Department
CITy OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: CHANGES TO CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
I am providing you this letter to facilitate review of the latest draft version of the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan (updated May 2, 1994) by City staff and the Planning Commission. Many changes
to the Land Use Plan and the Specific Plan document have occurred since the previous draft was
prepared in March 1993. A summary of the key changes follows:
I. LAND USE PLAN CHANGES
Figure IlI-1 on page III-3 has been revised to reflect the new Land Use Plan. This
exhibit was formerly in black & white and is now in full color.
Residential Densities. The land use categories in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan
have been modified. Previously, the Specific Plan proposed medium low density
(3.0 du/ac), medium density (5.2 du/ac), and very high density (17.0 du/ac)
residential uses. These categories have been replaced by low density (0.5 - 2.0
du/ac) and low medium density (3.0 - 6.0 du/ac) residential uses.
Total Residences. The number of residences on-site has been reduced from 850 du
at an average residential density of 9.9 du/ac to 308 du at an average density of
4.2 du/ac (a reduction of 542 dwellings).
Meadowview Buffer. All lots which abut the Meadowview development shall have
a minimum permitted lot size of 20,000 square feet in response to input and
concerns expressed by Meadowview residents. Additionally, a minimum six foot
(6') high solid wall shall be erected on the property boundary between the
residential lots in Planning Area 9 and the adjacent forty foot (40') wide open
space/paseo buffer.
Open Space/Paseo Buffer. A forty foot (40') wide buffer will be created between
the on-site residential uses in Planning Area 9 and the adjoining off-site
Meadowview development. An eight foot (8') wide minimum multi-purpose trail
i ~ Debbie Llbnoske
· CITY OF TEMECULA
Page 2
will meander through the entire length of the paseo. The paseo area and multi-
purpose trail will be maintained by the Temecula Community Services District
(TCSD).
Commercial/Office Uses. The commercial/office uses in Planning Area 2, located
next to the comer of Margarita Road/North General Keamy Road, have been
increased from 4.6 acres to 7.8 acres. In addition, all or portions of the
commerciaFoffice site may be developed with church/religious uses.
Commercial Center. The commercial center at the intersection of Winchester
Road/Margarita Road (e.g., Planning Area 4) has been reduced in size from 13.5
acres to 12.0 acres. Primary access to the commercial center will still be provided
from Campos Verdes Lane, with right-in/fight-out only access available from
Margarita Road.
Elementan, School Site. A 10.7 acre (gross) elementary school site is proposed
adjacent to North General Keamy Road (in Planning Area 7). The school site shall
be a minimum of 10.0 usable acres in size. The following text has been inserted
on page 111-57 of the Specific Plan: "If the project developer and the Temecula
Unified School District do not elect this option, then the total number of dwelling
units permitted in Planning Area 7 shall not exceed 64 single family homes with a
minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet."
Park Site. The park site in Planning Area 1 has been reduced in size from 13.5
acres to 10.8 acres. This reduction has been made because the number of dwellings
planned in Campos Verdes has been reduced from 850 du (March 1993) to 308 du
(May 1994). The developer is requesting to receive full park credits from the City
for 4.0 acres of parkland and 75% credit for the remaining 3.5 acres of parkland in
Planning Area 1. The remaining 3.3 acres in Planning Area 1 shall be used for
drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any park credits
for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses.
II. CIRCULATION PLAN CHANGES
The locations of both Campos Verdes Lane and Camino Campos Verdes have
remained unchanged. However, the entire network of interior streets within the
project site has been revised to accommodate the proposed changes in the Land Use
Plan.
The proposed extensions of Sanderling Way and Starling Street into the Campos
Verdes project from the adjacent Roripaugh Estates development have been deleted
from the proposed Circulation Plan at the request of Roripaugh Estates residents.
No vehicular connection is planned between Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates.
i ~ Debbie Ubnoske
CITY OF TEMECULA
May 18, 1994
...~ Page 3
OPEN SPACE/RECREAIION AND LANDSCAP~G PLAN CHANGES
Section HI.A.6 of the Specific Plan on page III-31 has been expanded from "Landscaping Plan"
(March 1993) to "Open Space/Recreation and Landscaping Plan" (May 1994). In addition to
discussing landscape requirements, this section now also discusses City park requirements.
Besides the park site in Hanning Area 1, a 2.0-acre open space/paseo buffer is
planned in Hanning Area 9 as a buffer to the existing Meadowview development.
A 5.9-acre detention basin is planned in Planning Area 2 next to the
comm ereial/office uses. "The detention basin, although it will serve a detention
function during winter storms, will contain a turfed-covered bottom that will be
suitable for passive recreational activities and impromptu ball games for much of
the year. The sides of the basin will be planted with tuff and trees" (see p. III-31).
Additionally, the following text has been inserted on page III-31 of the Specific
Plan:
"KCDC's proposal to provide park land in Campos Verdes in excess of the
4.0 acres required by TCSD standards will prove mutually beneficial for
both the TCSD and KCDC. The TCSD will receive an additional 3.5 acres
of developed park (suitable for both active and passive purposes), plus 5.9
acres of landscape detention basin and a 2.0-acre landscaped buffer paseo
containing a multi-purpose trail. In return, TCSD will: 1) accept
ownership and maintenance responsibility for the detention basin and
landscape buffer paseo in Campos Verdes, and2) allocate KCDC 75%park
credit for the 3. 5 acres of developed park land that KCDC is providing in
Campos Verdes in excess of TCSD requirements which shall be counted
toward the park and recreation requirements of other projects within the
City of Temecula that KCDC is developing."
1V. PROJECT PHASING PLANS
The Development Phasing Plan for Campos Verdes, as depicted in Table II on page
III-36, has been revised to reflect the new Land Use Plan. The park site is planned
for construction in Phase I and will be completed prior to issuance of the 781h
building permit for the project or within two (2) years of Map Recordation for the
first phase lots. Phasing of the elementary school site will ultimately be decided
by the School District. The detention basin in Planning Area 2 is planned for
development in Phase II, but may be developed earlier or later depending upon the
phasing of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The
commereial/office and commercial uses will be cons~-ucted in Phase II.
Debbie Ubnoske
CITY OF TEMECULA
May 18, 1994
..~ Page 4
Maintenance responsibilities for Campos Verdes are specified on page III-38 of the
Specific Plan. The TCSD will accept ownership and maintenance responsibility for ..
the detention basin, the 10.8-acre park, and the open space/paseo buffer adjacent to
Meadowview.
V. PLANNING AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHANGES
Pages Ill-40 through I11-65 have been modified to illustrate the revised Land Use Plan and
the new planning areas. Formerly, there were seven planning areas; now, there are nine
planning areas. Each planning area contains new development standards and a graphic
illustxation.
VL ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES
The Zoning Ordinance on pages I1/-66 through 111-88 has undergone substantial revisions
since the previous version in March 1993. We suggest that staff and the Planning
Commission review this section of the document carefully.
At the direction of City staff, the zoning ordinance was completely reorganized to
reflect the format of the City's draft Development Code. The land uses and
development standards have been reorganized into tables to facilitate quick review.
Minor changes have been made in some instances but, for the most part, the
development standards and uses are primarily the same as those contained in the
previous version of the Specific Plan.
New sections have been created for the Low & Low Medium Density Residential
Districts. These districts did not exist in previous draft version.
The section on "On-site Signs" starting on page Ili-82 of the Specific Plan has been
revised to eliminate' redundancy. No changes in content have been made in the
signage section.
VII. DESIGN GUIDELINES CHANGES
Changes have been made throughout the entire Design Guidelines section to coincide with the new
Land Use Plan. In revising this section of the Specific Plan, a minimum number of changes was
made to ensure consistency with the revised Land Use Plan, while preserving the design intent of
the section intact. Most of the changes in this section were made to the graphics.
Debbie Ubnoske
CITY OF TEMECULA
May 18, 1994
Page 5
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter
or the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
Sincerely,
T&B PLANNinG CONSULTANTS, INC.
Mark T. Hicknet
Project Manager
MTH:mh/004
cc: Dennis Chiniaeff
Batty Bumell
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
FIRST ADDENDUM TO EIR
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
SECOND ADDENDUM TO EIR
R:~STAFFRFI~ISP. PC3 6/3/94 klb 32
ADDENDUM EIR
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
EIR NO. 348
Lead A~en~:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
(714) 694-6400
Prepared By:
Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc.
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
June, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Purpose
A. Background .......................................... 1
B. Purpose ............................................. 1
C. Slimmary Analysis ..................................... 3
II.
Project Description
A. Objectives ............................................ 5
B. "Revised" Project Plan ................................... 5
C. "Origlnst" Project Plan .................................. 9
D. Comparative Analysis .................................. 12
III. Environmental Analysis
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
Seismic Safety ....................................... 14
Slopes and Erosion .................................... 17
Wind Erosion and Blowsand ............................. 19
Flooding ............................................ 20
Noise .............................................. 22
Climate and Air Quality ................................ 24
Water Quality ........................................ 26
Toxic Substances ..................................... 27
Agriculture ......................................... 28
Open Space and Conservation ............................ 29
WildlifeNegetation .................................... 30
Energy Resources ..................................... 32
Scenic Highways ...................................... 33
Cultural and ScientLfic Resources ......................... 34
Circulation .......................................... 36
Utilities and Services .................................. 42
Light and Glare ....................................... 44
Disaster Preparedness .................................. 45
Mandatory CEQA Topics
A. Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................. 46
B. St~mmsxy of Unavoi~nhle Adverse Impacts .................. 46
C. Alternatives to the Propesod Project ....................... 46
D. Growth Inducing Impacts, the Relationship Between
Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity, and Irreversible/
Irretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies and Other
Resources Should the Project Be Implemented ............... 47
Attachments
A - Supplemental Traffic Analysis
B - Correspondence from the Temecula V,~.alley Unified School District
LIST OF FIGURES
"Revised" Project Land Use Plan ................................ 7
"Original" Project Laud Use Plan .............................. 10
LIST OF TABLES
1. Comparative Analysis of Impacts and Mitigations ................... 3
2. "Revised" Project Land Use Snmmary ............................ 6
3. Development Phasing Plan .................................... 9
4. "Orj~nnl" Project Land Use Summary ........................... 11
5. Land Use Comparative Snmmary .............................. 13
6. Air Quality Analysis ........................................ 25
7. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan ....... 38
8. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Origjnnl" Campos Verdes Specific Plan ....... 39
9. Comparison of Traffic Impacts ................................ 40
10. Utility Agencies ........................................... 42
11. Public Services and Utilities Comparison of Impacts ................ 43
ADDENDUM EIR
CAMPO S VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
A. BackEround
The Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No.
348) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992
and August 24, 1992. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq.
of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula)
shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible
agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly
with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact
involved.
In February, 1993, an Addendure EIR to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan was
prepared. The purpose of this first Addendum EIR was three-fold: 1) to respond to
various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Campes Verdes Specific Plan; 2)
incorporate subsequently-prepared technical analyses (in the areas of
traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report;
and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the
concerns raised by the City or as a result of the subsequently-prepared technical
studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
Most recently, revisions were made to the land use plan for the proposed
Campos Verdes Specific Plan which reduce the number of propesed dwelling units and
changes the size of other proposed on-site land uses. It is the intent of this
Addendure to the Draft Environmental Impact Report to identify and discuss the
revisions made to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan (see Section II., Project
Description) followed by an analysis of the changes in project impacts and provision
of any additional mitigation measures (see Section III., Environmental Analysis).
Technical analyses specifically prepared in response to these project revisions (in the
area of traffic) are referred to within the text of Section III and are included in their
entirely as Attachments to this Addendum to the Draft EIR.
The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with
clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation
measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to
be an Addendum to the Campes Verdes Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15134
of the State CEQA Guidelines which states:
(a)
The Lead Agency or a RespensiLle Agency shall prepare an
Addendum to an EIR if:
(1)
None of the conditions desu~'bed in Section
15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project
revisions, changes in circumstances
surrounding the project, or additional project
impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming
feasible or available);
(2)
Only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary to make the EIR under
consideration adequate under CEQA; and
(3)
The changes to the EIR made by the
Addendure do not raise important new issues
about the s'~ficant effects on the
environment.
An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be
included in or attached to the Final EIR.
(c)
The decision-making body shall consider the Addendure
with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the
project.
This Addendum EIR in combination with the Draft EIR, Response to
Comments package, the previously-prepared Addendure EIR, Staff Report and any
other attachments and technical reports constitute the Final EIR for the Campos
Verdes SpecLfic Plan.
This Addendure to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared for the City of Temecula in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and City Guidelines for
the Implementation of CEQA. More specifically, the City has relied on Section
15084(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepared by the
applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of
Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted
"screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the
previously-prepared Addendum EIR, and this Addendure to the Draft EIR to reflect
their own independent judgement to the extent of their ability.
In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines, this Addendum
to the Draft EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, to
evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Campos Verdes Specific
Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any adverse effects.
The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects of the project
against a variety of public objectives, includ~ing economic, environmental and social
factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for
development.
2
C. Summary Analysis
The foliov~ng tabular 8urnrusty lists the environmental issues discussed within
both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and this Addendure to the Draft EIR.
This Brimrusty table indicates which environmental issues experienced a change in
project-related impacts and/or the provision of additional ~nitigation measures beyond
those conteined in the Draft EIR as a result of the revisions made to the proposed
project land use plan, as discussed in Section II of this Addendure.
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Environmental Issue
Changes in
Proiect Impacts
Additional
Mitigation Measures
A. Seismic Safety*
B. Slopes and Erosion
C. Wind Erosion and Blowsand
D. Flooding
E. Noise*
F. Climate and Air Quality*
G. Water Quality
H. Toxic Substances
I. Agriculture*
J. Open Space and Conservation
K. Wildlife/Vegetation*
L. Energy Resources
M. Scenic Highways
N. Cultural and Scientific Resources
O. Circulation*
P. Utilities and Services*
Q. Light and Glare
R. Disaster Preparedness
decreased no
unchanged no
unchanged no
decreased no
decreased no
decreased no
decreased no
unchanged no
unchanged no
unchanged no
decreased no
decreased no
decreased no
unchanged no
decreased no
decreased no
decreased no
decreased no
* Significant Impacts Remain; Statement of Overriding Considerations Required
As shown above, project related impacts in the areas of Seismic Safety,
Flooding, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Water Quality, Energy Resources, Scenic
Highways, Circulation, Utilities and Services, Light and Glare and Disaster
Preparedness have been reduced as a consequence of revisions made to the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan.
The nature and extent of the changes in project impacts and additional
mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section III, Environmental Analysis of
this Addendure to the Draft EIR. None of ~e net changes in project impacts noted
above result in the creation of new mitigation measures or unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts beyond those already identified in the Campos Verdes Draft
3
Environmental Impact Report. Significant impacts as a result of development of the
"Revised" Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan remain in the areas of Seismic Safety, Noise,
Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, WiirlllfeNegetation, Circulation and Utilities
and Services (libraries).
4
H. PROJECT DESCRIFrION
A. Objectives
The basic objective of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan is to provide
single family detached residential housing accompanied by on-site commercial,
institutional, and recreational uses.
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this
Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Addendure EIR) has been
prepared to facilitate an objective assessment of the individual and collective
environmental impacts associated with approval and implementation of the revised
Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The project involves the following proposed
discretionary actions by the City of Temecula: 1) Approval of the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan; 2) Certification of the Campos Verdes Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse No. 89020139); 3) Approval of a change of zoning to
Specific Plan (SP); and 4) Approval of the Campos Verdes Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
It is the intent of this Section II to provide a detailed discussion of the recently-
revised Campos Verdes Specffic Plan (to be referred to as the "Revised" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan or the "Revised" project plan). This discussion contains the same
level of detail as found in the Project Description within the Draft EIR. As indicated
in Section I., Introduction and Purpose, these revisions to the proposed project
occurred subsequent to the circulation of the Campos Verdes Specffic Plan Draft EIR.
This Section next provides a summary of the Original Specific Plan discussed and
analyzed in the Draft EIR (to be referred to as the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific
Plan or the "Original" project plan). In order to maintain the adequacy of the Draft
EIR and to facilitate the evaluation of the impacts of these revisions, a comparative
analysis of the "Revised" and "Original" project plans is also provided in this Section.
B. "Revised" Pr~iect Plan
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is ~ustrated in Figure 1, "Revised" Project
Land Use Plan and delineated in Table 2, "Revised" Project Land Use Summary. The
"Revised" project plan involves a maximum total of 308 dwelling units on 72.7 acres
(a net density of 4.2 dwelling units per acre) with 19.8 acres of
commercial/office/c'nurch uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre
Elementary School and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways.
5
TABLE 2
"REVISED" PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use
Designation
Residential
Low (.5 to 2
DU/AC)
Low Medium
(3to 6
DU/AC)
Subtotal
Non-
Residential
Commercial
Commercial/
Office/Church
and Detention
Basin ~
Elementary
School
Park 2
Roads
Subtotal
PROJECT
TOTAL
Planning Area
Density Dwelling
(DU/AC) Units
Acre8
9 1.1 18 16.0
3 6.3 76 12.0
5 5.2 86 16.5
6 5.9 72 12.3
8 3.5 56 15.9
4
2
7
4.2 308 72.7
2.3 308
1
12.0
13.7
10.7
10.8
13.0
60.2
132.9
Notes
Approximately 7.8 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for
commercial/office uses adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.9
acres shall include a landscaped detention basin. No park credits wffi be given for the
detention basin by the City.
2 The developer shall receive full park credits from the City for 7.5 acres of
parkland within Planning Area 1. The remaining 3.3 acres in Planning Area 1 shah
be used for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shah not receive any
park credits for those portions of the park devoted primar~y to drainage/detention
uses. ~,,
6
The proposed land uses within the Specific Plan include:
Low Density Residential: Appro~iraately 18 dwelling units wffi be developed on 16
acres at a density of 1.1 dwelling nnits per acre. Those single family detached homes
wffi be located in Planning Area 9 adjacent to the off-site residential uses.
Low Medium Density Residential: The remaining residential development within the
Campes Verdes Specific Plan will be developed within a density range of 3.5 to 6.3
dwelling units per acre. Planning Areas 3, 5, 6 and 8 contain a total of 290 residential
dwelling units on a total of 56.7 acres.
Coraraercial/Office and Detention Basin: pJannlug Area 4 wffi be developed with 12.0
acres of commercial property along Margarita and Winchester Reads. Planning Area
2 (13.7 acres total) will be developed with a detention basin on 5.9 acres;
commercial/office uses will be constructed on 7.8 acres of the parcel, adjacent to North
General Kearny Read. The developer shall not receive any park credit for the
detention basin fadlity in Planning Area 2.
Park: A 10.8 acre park is planned along North General Kearny Read in Planning
Area 1. It is anticipated that this park will centsin seftbalt/seccer fields, on-site
parking, tot lots, picnic area, etc. A total of 7.5 acres will count fully toward City park
requirements. A portion of the park (3.3 acres) will be used for drainage/detention
purposes to help protect adjacent land uses from flooding during a 100-year storm.
The 3.3 acres of drainage- and detention-related uses will not count toward City
requirements for park credits.
Elementary School: A 10.7 acre elementary school site shall be provided in Planning
Area 7. This elementary school will be utilized by the Temecula Valley Unified School
District. This site may be used as credit against School Mitigation Fees which may
otherwise be required. If a school is not constructed on this site, then a maximum of
64 single faraily dwellings may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots.
Roads: Roadways totalling 13.0 acres will be constructed in conjunction with the
proposed project.
Project-wide development standards have been prepared to manage
implementation of general or unique conditions in each Planning Area. These general
standards are listed in Section III.A. 1., Specific Land Use Plan of the Carapos Verdes
Specific Plan. Specific information regarding the Planning Areas can be found in
Section III.D., Planning Area Development Standards and Section III.C., Zoning
Ordinance within the Carapes Verdes Specific Plan.
The "Revised" Carapos Verdes Specific Plan will be developed over a five year
period in accordance with the Development Phasing Plan delineated in Table 3 below.
8
TABLE 3
DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN
Phase
Use
Planning
Area
Acres Units
Phase I
Years 1 and 2
Subtotal
Phase H
- Park
- Elementary School x
- Low Medium Residential
- Low Medium Residential
- Low Medium Residential
1 10.8 0
7 10.7 0
3 12.0 76
5 16.5 86
6 12.3 72
62.3 234
Years 3 to 5
Subtotal
Project
Roadways
PROJECT
TOTAL
- Low Residential
- Low Medium Residential
- Commercial/Office/
Church and Drainage 2
- Commercial
9 16.0 18
8 15.9 56
2 13.7 0
4 12.0 0
57.6 74
13.0
132.9 308
Notes
~ phasing of the elementary school will ultimately be determined by the Temecula
Valley Unified School District. The District may elect to build the school in Phase II,
if ever. If a school is not constructed on this site, then a maximum of 64 single f3m~ly
dwelling may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots.
2 The detention basin in Planning Area 2 may be developed earlier depending upon
the phasing of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
"Original" Project Plan
The "Original" Compos Verdes Specific Plan involved a maximum total of 850 dwelling
units on 86.0 acres (a net density of 9.9 dwelling units per acre) as illustrated in
Figure 2. As noted in Table 4, "Original" Project Land Use Summary, residential
densities range from Medium Low Density (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre on 21.0
acres); Medium Density (5 to 8 dwelling units per acre on 27.1 acres); and Very High
Density (8 to 17 dwelling units per acre on~137.9 acres). In addition, a total of 18.1
acres of commercial/office/church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 13.5 acre park and
9.5 acres of on-site roadways were also proposed.
9
TABLE 4
"ORIGINAL" PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use Planning Area
Designation
Residential
Medium Low 7
(2 to 5
DU/AC)
Medium (5 to 6
8 DU/AC)
Very High (8 5
to 17 DU/AC) 3
Subtotal
Non-
Residential
Commercial 4
Commercial/ 2
Office/Church
and Detention
Basin ~
Park 2 1
Roads
Subtotal
PROJECT
TOTAL
Notes
Density Dwelling
(DU/AC) Units
Acres
3.0 65 21.0
5.2 141 27.1
17.0 267 15.7
17.0 377 22.2
9.9 850 86.0
13.5
10.4
6.4 850
13.5
9.5
46.9
132.9
~ Approximately 4.6 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/office
uses adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.8 acres shall include
a landscaped detention basin. No park credits will be given for the detention basin
by the City.
2 The developer shah receive full park credits from the City for 10.7 acres of parkland
within Planning Area 1. The remaining 2.8 acres in Planning Area 1 shah be used
for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shah not receive any park credits
for those pertions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses.
11
Comparative Anal.vsis
Provided below is both a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the
"Revised" and "Ori~nnl" project plans (each of which is individually discussed in
Sections II.B. and II.C., respectively of this Addendure to the Draft EIR) and
summarized in Table 5, Land Use Comparative Summary. As previously noted,
revisions to the project land use plan occurred subsequent to the public circulation of
the Cornpea Verdes Specific Plan Draft EIR. The following list represents the primary
elements of the proposed Campea Verdes Specffic Plan which have changed since
circulation of the Draft EIR. These revisions are currently reflected within the
"Revised" Project Plan.
1. The proposed ms~rimum dwelling unit total for the Cnmpos Verdes Specific
Plan has been reduced from 850 to 308, a reduction of 63.7%. The gross project
density has been reduced to 2.3 dwelling units per gross acre from 6.4 dwelling units
per gross acre. The net density of the project has also been reduced from 9.9 to 4.2
dwelling units per net acre. Net density relates to the number of proposed dwelling
units within actual developed acreage. A reduced total of 72.7. acres is devoted to
residential land uses in the "Revised" project land use plan as compared to 86.0 acres
of residential uses in the "Original" project land use plan.
2. Within the overall dwelling unit total, the densities of proposed residential
uses have been reduced. The "Revised" Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan contains housing
within the Low Density (0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre) and Low Medium Density
Residential (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) categories. The "Original" project plan
provided housing within the Low Medium Density (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) and
Very High Density (8 to 17 dwelling units per acre) residential density categories.
The "Revised" project plan eliminates all housing within these two higher residential
density categories. In so doing, all attached housing has been eliminated from the
project proposal.
3. The amount of commercial/office/church land use has been expanded to a
total of 19.8 acres from 18.1 acres in the "Original" project plan. An additional 3.2
acres of commercial/office/church use was added to Planning Area 2 while 1.5 acres
of commercial use was taken from Planning Area 4, a net increase of 1.7 acres.
4. The park proposed in Planning Area 1 has been reduced to 10.8 acres in the
"Revised" project plan from 13.5 acres in the "Original" project plan. A total of 7.5
acres (rather than the original proposal of 10.7 acres) wffi be applied toward City park
requirements. The pertions of Planning Areas 2 and 4 contain areas which wffi serve
as a retention basin or will provide drainage/detention functions. These drainage and
detention-related uses apply to areas for which no park credit is being requested.
5. A 10.7 acre Elementary School site has been added to the "Revised" project
land use plan within Planning Area 7 (see Figure 1 "Revised" Project Land Use Plan).
Within the "Original" project land use plan, ten acres was identffied within Land Use
Development Standard 18 on page III-8 of th'~ Canapes Verdes Specific Plan (January,
1993) as a "potential elementary school site". At that time, it was stipulated that if
12
the option of constructing a school was not pursued by the Temecula Valley Unified
School District, a maYimum of 64 dwelling units would be constructed at this location.
This stipulation of conversion to residential use of this area remains Within the
"Revised" Specific plan,
The additional environmental impacts associated With theso project revisions are
discussed in detail in the following Section IlL, Environmental Analysis.
TABLE 5
LAND USE COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
"Revised" Land Use Plan "Original" LandUse Plan
Land Use Acres Dwelling Acres Dwelling
Designation Units Units
Residential
Low Density 16.0 18 -
(0.2 DU/AC)
Low Medium 56.7 290 21.0 65
Density (2 to
5 DU/AC)
Medium 27.1 141
Density (5 to
8 DU/AC)
Very High 37.9 644
Density (8 to
17 DU/AC)
Subtotal 72.7 808 86.0 850
Commercial 12.0 13.5
Commercial/ 13.7 10.4
Office/Church
and Detention
Basin
Park 10.8 13.5
Elementary 10.7
School
Roads 13.0 9.5
PROJECT 132.9 308 132.9 850
13
rtl, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following environmental analysis is intended to identify and discuss the changes
in project impacts and propose any additions and/or revisions to recommended
mitigation measures resulting from the revisions made to the CAmpos Verdes Specific
Plan (as discussed in Section II, Project Description of this Addendum to the Draft
EIR). This analysis will identify the net changes from those impact assessments and
mitigation measures contained in the previously-circulated CAmpos Verdes Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
This section analyzes these project revisions in terms of the same environmental
topics discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Each analysis begins
with a summary of "Existing Conditions" and the "Previously-Identified Project
Impacts" as discussed in the Draft EIR. Following these summaries is an "Analysis
of Changes in Project Impacts" resulting from the revisions to the project land use
plan. Each analysis concludes with a listing of any "Revised Mitigation Measures".
Any "revised" mitigation measures have been included in the proposed Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report. Both the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring
ProgrAm will be the subject of consideration and certffication by the City of Temecula
concurrent with final action on the Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan.
SEISMIC SAFETY
Existing Conditions
The site hes within a region of generally high seismicity as does all of Southern
California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience ground motion
from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults.
The dominant structural feature in the area is the northwest-striking Elsinore Fault
Zone. This fault zone coincides with the dominant northwest-southwest structural and
regional tectonic patterns displayed by other fault systems including the San Andreas
and San Jacinto Fault Zone.
A magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring on the Elsinore Fault (Wildomar Branch) near
the site could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.70g at the site.
The duration of strong motion is expected to exceed 30 seconds.
No known active faults project toward or extend through the site. The site is not
located within a designated State of California Alqulst-Priolo Special Studies Zone.
Groundwater was encountered on the south-central and southeast section of the
project at a depth as shallow as 23 feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater
does not extend into the relatively shallow alluvium, but is limited to within the late
Pleistocene Age sedimentary bedrock. B~ on the type of soils and depth to
groundwater, any liquefaction that might occur on-site is likely to be confined to the
relatively thin zones of deep saturated soils. Therefore, any minor liquefaction
14
occurring on-site is not considered Signi~nt.
The proposed project lies within a ~tnm inundation area and may be subject to
seismically induced flooding from a clam failure at Skinner Reservoir. The project site
is located approximately six miles downstream of Sirinner Reservoir within close
proximity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Skinner Reservoir is utili~.ed for domestic water
storage, not for flood control purposes. Accordling to the Dam Break and Floodway
Inundation Study for Domenigoni Valley Reservoir West DAm and Sirinner Reservoir
Dam, Riverside County (prepared by the Office of Hydrological Studies, Department
of Civil Engineering, Cal State University, Sac~nmente, dated September 15, 1993),
the project site will not be inundated due to a breach of the Domeniigoni Valley
Reservoir West Dam.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be impacted by seismic activity along the
Wildomar Fault alignment which is located approximately I mile southwest of the
project. As previously mentioned, this fault zone is presently included within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The project design has reflected State and local
regulations with respect to the Wildomar Fault.
It is possible that during a Richter magnitude 7.5 earthquake along the Elsinore Fault
Zone (Wildomar Branch) the site wffi experience a maximum peak ground acceleration
in bedrock of 0.70g.
Due to the content of on-site soils and the depth of groundwater, secondary seismic
hazards such as liquefaction, if any, that may occur will be confined to the relatively
thin zones of deep saturated soils. Any minor liquefaction occurring on-site is
considered insignificant and is not anticipated to cause damage or cellapse of on-site
structures.
A portion of the Campos Verdes site lies within a dam inundation area and may be
subject to seismically induced flooding from a failure of Skinner DAm. This is an
unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has
been prepared.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (798
persons based upon a factor of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit) as compared to the
"Original" Specific Plan (2,201 new residents). This decrease of 1,403 project residents
(63.7% of the previous total) results in fewer persons being exposed to potential
seismic safety hazards as a result of ground shaking expected to occur on the project
site as well as seismically-induced flooding due to failure of Skinner Dam. The extent
of impacts of the project upon existing seismic conditions will remain unchanged from
those associated with the "Original" project plan.
15
4. Revised Mitigation Measures
No additionnl and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contsined
in the Draft EIR.
16
B. SLOPES AND EROSION
Existing Conditions
Topography across the site consists of low rolling hills and associated southwest-
trending drainages with a maximum relief of about 100 feet. The site is located within
the Peninsular Ranges Gcomorphic Province east of the Santa Ana Mountains. The
Peninsular Ranges extend southward from the Los Angeles Basin through Baja
California, and are characterized by large Mesozoic Age intrusive rock masses ~snlred
by volcanic metasedimentary and sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges have a
general northwest-trending structural gain that includes such geologic features as
faults, bedding and foliation trends, and geologic contacts. Site elevations range from
between approximately 1,168 feet and 1,069 feet.
The site is underlain by bedrock materials of the Pauba Formation and alluvium
which are locally manfled by topsoil. Artfficial fill exists in the perimeter of the
northwest portion of the site.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan is considered feasible for the proposed residential
and commercial development, provided that the generalized recommendations found
in the "Geotechnical Investigation," included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR, and
future geotechnical investigations are incorporated into the design and construction
of the proposed project.
Development of the Campos Verdes project will require alteration of the existing
natural landform. Complete removal of all alluvial, topsoff, and loose compressible low
strength older alluvium and/or disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement
of structural fills. So~s removed during the excavation procedures may be utilized as
compacted fffi, provided they have been stripped of organics and other deleterious
materials. Cut and fill slopes will be designed and are anticipated to be stable at a
ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope. Slopes of greater height as well as the final
design of all cut and fill slopes will require approval during grading plan review. The
geotechnical reports indicates that 35 feet of fill slopes and 38 feet of cut slopes are
proposed. According to the Project Engineer, the proposed grading plan results in
2,616,743 cubic yards of cut and 376,123 cubic yards of fill. With appropriate permits,
the balance of earthwork will be relocated to the Temecula Regional Center proposed
to the west of Campos Verdes.
Due to the content of on-site soils, slope erosion is a significant concern with regard
to surfidal stability. To alleviate this impact, it is recommended that slopes be
properly compacted and aH cut and fill slopes be planted with erosion resistant
vegetation or other protective devices immediately after grading.
17
o
Analysis of Cbnnges in Project Impacts
The geotechnical feasibility of development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific
Plan, given adherence to current and future geotochnical recommendations, remains
unchangecL The "Revised" project plan maintains the same ~mount of area (132.9
acres) being disrupted by grading as the "Original" project plan.
Development of the "Revised" C-mpos Verdes Specific Plan will result in a similar
total of approximately 2.6 million cubic yards of material being moved as that
associated with the "Original" project plan with the balance of earthwork being
relocated, if necessary, to the Temecula Regional Center site to the west. The
potential for erosion-related impacts remain unchenffed within the "Revised" project
plan given adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
18
C. WIND EROSION AND BLOWSAND
Existing Conditions
The project is not located within the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Area designated
within the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Although the project site lies outside the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Areas designated
by the County of Riverside, construction activities (primarily site preparation and
grsding) will generate fugitive dust. Construction activities for large development
projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Comp~ation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil
disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control
dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent.
Applying the above factors to the approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month
grading cycle completing 25% of the grading, and a 5 year grading duration, an
average of .05 tons (109 pounds) per day of particulate emissions wffi be released
during grading of the project site. Dust generated by such activities usually becomes
more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to involve a similar amount of
landform alteration as the "Original" Specific Plan. A similar amount of area (132.9
acres) and earth being moved (2.6 million cubic yards) is associated with the "Revised"
project plan as was expected with the "Original" Specific Plan. Little change in Wind
and Blowsand impacts is therefore anticipated.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
19
D. FLOODING
Existing Conditions
The majority of the project area is located within the Santa Gertrudis Valley, to the
north of the continence of the Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. An existing 100-
year floodplain occupies the southern portion of the project site in the vicinity of an
"un-named dry wash" which traverses the site. This wash discharges through an
existing 10 foot x 5 foot RCB under Margarita Road. The total area tributary to the
basin outlet at Margarita Read is approximately 1,650 acres.
Off-site to the southwest, the site discharges under Ynez Read through an existing
double 10 foot X 5 foot Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) under Ynez Read, located
approximately 1,200 feet north of Solana Way. This RCB is presently able to convey
the estimated existing 1,250 cubic feet per second of storm water but any additional
development upstream even without the Cnmpos Verdes project will exceed the RCB
capacity.
Portions of the Campos Verdes site drains toward the empty lot of the proposed
Temecula Regional Center, Specific Plan No. 263. The runoff travels via overland
flow to the existing double 7 foot X 5 foot RCB at Palm Plaza
A small portion of runoff generated on the west slope of the ridge adjacent to
Winchester Road currently drains to an existing 24 inch CMP culvert under
Winchester Read. It is then conveyed through a cut channel to Santa Gertrudis
Creek.
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control
District and Water Conservation District. The project site is also located within the
Temecula Valley Area of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, and there are
drainage fees of $1,970 per acre associated with developments within the site.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan would result in short-term and long-
term hydrologic impacts. The development and construction phase of the proposed
project would potentially create short-term downstream impacts related to erosion and
sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils during project grading.
The development phase of the project will result in the creation of impermeable
surfaces on-site that will increase the existing 100 year storm runoff from 1,055 cubic
feet per second to approximately 1,567 cubic feet per second at Margarita Read. The
developed on-site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be adequately
conveyed by the proposed drainage system.
The proposed drainage system incorporates a park/detention basin along the southern
project boundary (Pl~,nniug Area 1) in orde~ to reduce the flow rate experienced by
the Ynez Read double box drainage facility to 1,250 cubic feet per second.
2O
According to the project engineer, the proposed detention basin will be designed to
convey the 5 year storm runoff directly through the proposed park/retention basin site
allowing full use of the remaining park areas. During storms greater than the 5 year
event, stormwater retention wffi impact the proposed on-site recreational park area.
Drainage facilities from the project site ultimately discharge downstream into the
Murrieta Creek and without the proposed Campos Verdes retention basin would
increase the existing 100 year storm of 1,250 cubic feet per second to approximately
1,890 cubic feet per second. This increased flow rate would contribute to cumulative
increased flow rates downstream and the potential for flooding in areas with
undersized facilities. The cumulative drainage impacts in the Rancho California area
are currently being addressed by RCFC & WCD's design studies for improvement of
the Murrieta Creek Cbannel.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specffic Plan involves a similar amount of area being
disrupted during project construction as compared to the "Original" project plan. As
such, similar, short-term potential downstream impacts related to erosion and
sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils during project grading is expected
to occur.
The amount of impervious surfaces created by development of the "Revised" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan is expected to be reduced as compared to the "Original" project
plan as a consequence of the significant (63.7%) reduction in the number of proposed
dwelling units. Although an additional 3.5 acres of on-site roadways are proposed as
part of the "Revised" Specific Plan, as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan, this
increase in the amount of impervious roadway surface will be negated by the decrease
in the total number of dwelling units {and associated impervious surfaces, i.e. roofs,
driveways, etc.) proposed. This reduction of 541 dwelling units results in the
reduction of approximately 1,084,000 square feet of impervious surfaces (asSuming
2,000 square feet of roofs, driveways, patios, etc. per dwelling nnit). The increase of
3.5 acres of on-site roac[s creates 152,460 square feet of additional impervious surface.
Therefore, the "Revised" Specffic Plan results in a net decrease of 931,540 square feet
of impervious surfaces as compared the the "Original" Project plan. Levels of storm
runoff from the "Revised" Specffic Plan is therefore expected to be reduced as
compared to the "Original" Specific Plan. In either case, the proposed drainage system
is expected to be capable of handling any increases in storm flows from the developed
Campos Verdes site.
Since the "Revised" Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (a decrease of
1,403 residents) fewer persons will be exposed to potential flooding hazards.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR. ~
21
E. NOISE
Existing Conditions
Data provided in the Draft EIR indicates that a msjor noise corridor exists along
Interstate 15. Noise levels directly adjacent to Interstate 15 exceed 70 CNEL. Other
roadways in the vit~nlty have low levels of traffic and corresponding low levels of
noise. In the vicinity of the project site, the 65 CNEL contour extends approximately
73 feet beyond the contorline of Winchester Road and remains within the right-of-way
of Margarita Road.
Previously-Identified Project ImpaCtS
Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise
generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete
mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Noise levels for equipment
which might be used for the excavation and construction of the proposed project range
from approximately 65 to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The noise levels decrease
at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance.
The proposed development of Campos Verdes will generate traffic, and as a result wffi
alter projected noise levels in the surrounding areas. Due to future development
which has already been approved there wffi be an increase in traffic in surrounding
areas with or without the proposed project. The noise levels will increase
substantially over existing noise levels for sensitive land uses along some of the streets
in the vicinity of the project. These increases are primarily due to other projects
planned in the area. The substantial increases are generally due to the relatively low
amount of traffic currently in the area. A maximum change of 12.8 dB exists along
Margarita Road (between B Street and Winchester Road) which will have a noise
exposure just less than 70 CNEL at the edge of the roadway right-of-way off-site.
Areas along 1-15, Diaz Road, Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, Margarita Road, Nicolas
Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road and Solaria Way wffi also
experience noise increases greater than 3 dB. Those roadways that have noise
increases greater than 3 dB and future noise levels greater than 65 CNEL are
considered significant impacts if existing residential developments are adjacent to the
roadways. Such roadways include Margarita Road, Winchester Road, Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and Nicholas Road. For planned residential areas that are not yet
developed, roadway noise can be mitigated by the developer at the time of
construction.
The future noise increase levels due solely to the project are all less than 3 dB except
for along Margarita Road between B Street and Winchester Road. However, this
segment of Margarita Road is currently undeveloped, and therefore will not experience
significant noise impacts due to the project. Therefore, the project will contribute
only slightly to noise increases in the area. However, the impact of cxjmulative
development upon this roadway segment results in an increase of 12.8 dB over the
existing noise levels. This increase is considered a significant off-site noise impact.
22
Limited portions of the project site proposed for residential use may experience traffic
noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Specffically,
residential lots along General Kearny and Margarita Road may experience noise levels
over 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Residential areas along Winchester
Read and proposed commercial/office uses a~acent to Margarita Read will experience
noise within acceptable levels.
While the proposed project represents an incremental contribution to this ultimate
noise impact condition, cumulative noise increases are largely a result of increased
traffic originating outside the project boundaries. These regional (or cumulative)
noise impacts are considered a significant impact to off-site areas surrounding these
roadways for which a Statement of Overriding Conditions has been prepared.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
Since the "Proposed" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves the same amount of area
being subjected to landform alteration (132.9 acres), short-term noise impacts related
to project grading is expected to remain unchanged from levels associated with the
"Original" project plan. The significant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling
units will result in a similar decrease in short-term noise impacts associated with
construction of structures on the project site.
As noted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis included as Attachment A to this
Addendure to the Draft EIR~ a total of 12,268 motor vehicle trips are associated with
the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This represents a 24.2% reduction from
the total number of vehicle trips (16,184 trips) associated with the "Original" C3mpos
Verdes Specific Plan. This reduction will result in reduced on- and off-site noise
impacts. As such, mitigation measures (barriers, setbacks, etc.) to be provided in
response to these impacts may also be reduced. The extent of these measures will be
determined through acoustical studies prepared prior to grading permit or tract map
approval. However, as previously noted, significant future noise impacts are the
result of increased traffc originating outside the project boundaries. These regional
(or cumulative) noise impacts associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific
Plan remain as a significant impact to off-site areas and will still require a Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
**
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
23
F. CLrMATE AND AIR QU~,LrrY
Existing Conditions
The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The climate of the
basin is classffied as Mediterranean, characterized by a pattern of cool, wet winters
and warm, dry summers. State standards for oxidants and particulates are exceeded
at the Pen-is Ambient Air Monitoring Station, while State and Federal Standards of
lead and sulfur oxides were not exceeded at this station.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air poHutants wffi
be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and
site preparation.
Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors")
to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If
water or other soft stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule
403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the
approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month grading cycle completing 25% of
the grading, and a 5 year grading duration, an average of .05 tons per day of
particulate emissions will be released during grading of the project site in one grading
phase.
Another short term impact will be from the exporting of dirt from Campus Verdes
project site to Temecula Regional Center project site during grading. A total of 2.3
million cubic yards of dirt will be exported during a 6 month grading cycle (26 weeks
assuming a 5 day work week). It should be noted that this estimate of amount of fffi
exported may vary significantly as final grading plans are developed. These emissions
are' not considered significant due to the fact that they do not reach significant impact
thresholds established by SCAQMD.
The main source of emissions generated by the project wffi be from motor vehicles.
Other emissions will be generated from the residential combustion of natural gas for
space heating and the use of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the
commercial use of natural gas and electricity.
Total long-term pollutant generation (due to motor vehicles, power plant emissions
and natural gas emissions) is considered "significant" by the "Air Quality Handbook".
Analysis of Changes in Project ~m!~acts
The "Revised" Cnrapos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to involve a s~rnflgX anlount
oflandform alteration as the '0 ri~nsT" Specific Plan. A similar amount of area (132.9
acres) and earth being moved (2.6 mffiion cubic yards) is associated with the "Revised"
project plan as was expected with the "Original" Specific Plan. Little in the way of
changes to these short-term air quality impacts is therefore anticipated.
As noted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis included as Attachment A to this
Addendum to the Draft EIR, a total of 12,268 motor vehicle trips is associated with
the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This represents a 24.2% reduction from
the total number of vehicle trips (16,184 trips) associated with the "Ori~naF Campos
Verdes Specific Plan. This results in a reduced amount of pollutants generated by
motor vehicle emissions from the proposed project. The reduction of 542 dwelling
units from the "Original" to the "Revised" Specific Plans also results in a 63.7%
decrease in stationary source emissions resulting from electricity and natural gas use.
Provided below is the result of an analysis of the total air pollutant emissions
associated with the "Revised" project plan. These calculations utilize the same
pollutant generation factors as used in the air quality analyses of the "Original"
project plan within the Draft EIR.
TABLE 6
AIR QU.~LITY ANALYSIS (lbs/day)
Pollutant Motor Electrical Natural Total SCAQMD
Vehicle Emissions Gas Threshold of
Emissions Emissions Significance
CO 1,167.0 2.8 1.8 1,171.6 550
NOx 226.9 16.0 0.1 243.0 100
SOx 45.4 1.7 47.1 150
Particulates 54.2 0.5 0.1 54.8 150
ROG 92.7 0.1 0.5 93.3 75
Pollutant generation associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan
exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance in the generation of carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases.
In spite of these reductions, air quality impacts associated with the "Revised" C~mpos
Verdes Spocffic Plan remains as a significant impact for which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been preparecL
5
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation meas'~tres are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
25
G. WATER QUALITY
Existing Conditions
The project lies entirely within the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater ares~ This
groundwater area, the largest in the entire San Diego Region, covers a surface area
of about 60,000 acres. The groundwater aquifers are recharged by underflow from the
Lancaster Basin to the east and by surface flows from Warm Springs, Murrieta, Santa
Gertrudis and Temecula Creeks and by direct precipitation within the valley ares~
The Murrieta-Temecula Basin is considered to be in an overdraft condition as
evidenced by a long-term decline in water levels. Much of the basin is overlain by a
relatively impervious layer which restricts recharge of the underlying sediments.
According to the "Geotechnical Investigation", on-site groundwater was encountered
at depths of about 23 feet and 27 feet.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Construction of the Campos Verdes project will alter the composition of surface runoff
by grading the site surfaces, by construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking
facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. As discussed in detail within Section
III.D., Flooding, the "Revised" Specific Plan results in a net reduction of approximately
931,540 square feet of impervious surface as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan.
Runoff entering the storm drain system wffi contain minor Amounts of pollutants
typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues,
detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use,
will contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream in
Murrieta Creek.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The amount of impervious surfaces created by development of the "Revised" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan is expected to be reduced as compared to the "Original" project
plan as a consequence of the significant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling
units. The amount ofpollutants entering the storm drain system and potentially into
groundwater supplies will be similarly reduced due to this reduction in dwelling units
and the generation of fewer project residents.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
26
H. TOXIC SUBSTANCES
l~,ri~ing Conditions
The subject property has been a site of prior agricultural activities, however, no
hazardous waste materials were noted on-site.
There are about 1,200 facilities that generate hazardous waste within the
jurisdictional review of the County of Riverside Health Department. Approximately
25,000 tons of hazardous waste are being generated in Riverside County each year.
Most hazardous waste generated in the County is either shipped to off-site locations
with a significant and growing pertion disposed of out of state or managed on-site by
the generator.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
The Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation indicates that the presence
of hazardous material within a majority of the subject property is nnlil~ely. However,
due to the past agricultural use of the site, there remains the potential for near
surface soft cent~mination due to residues from prior pesticide use. Additionally,
located in the northwest area of the site is a fffi area. While no hazardous materials
were observed within the fffi area, there remains an inherent uncertainty as to the
subsurface fffi contents.
Development of the site may include small quantity generators. Small quantity
generators are businesses that produce less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste
per month (13.2 tons per year). A large majority of the 1,200 hazardous waste
generators under the County's jurisdiction are small quantity generators.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The potential for near surface soft centamlnation due to residues from pesticide use
associated with prior agricultural activities on-site will remain unchanged from the ·
"Original" to the "Revised" project pins. The increase in the amount of on-site
commercial uses from 18.1 to 19.8 acres may result in an increased potential for the
estabhshment of small quantity toxic substance generators. However, given
adherence to the mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR, the levels of
impacts related to toxic substances are anticipated to remain unchanged.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
27
I. AGRICULTURE
Existing Conditions
The primary crops grown on the Cnmpos Verdes site are pasture crops including
barley and oats. The project site contains Class I and Class II so~s which are
considered "Prime". The site is designated as "Local Important Farmland" on the
Riverside County Agricultural Resources Map.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Implementation of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan wffi remove an estimated 132.9
acres of pasture crops, contributing to the decline of such uses in Riverside County.
Project implementation will result in urban development on "Local Important
Farmland" per the County Agricultural Resources Map. In addition, development will
occur on soils that are classffied as "Prime" (soft capability Classes I and II) per the
Soft Survey, Western Riverside Area. According to the California Department of
Conservation, the loss of any prime agricultural land is considered a significant
environmental impact.
Due to the relatively small acreage of agricultural use which will be impacted, the
commitment of the project site to non-agricultural uses will not adversely affect the
agricultural productivity of the area. However, construction of various projects in the
area will continue and possibly accelerate the trend toward development of
agricultural lands in Riverside County.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
Development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in the removal
of 132.9 acres of land which centain soils classified as "Prime" per the Soft Survey of
Western Riverside Area. This impact is identical to Agriculture-related impacts
assodated with the "Original" Specific Plan. This loss of prime agricultural land
rema/ns as a significant impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared. Negligible impacts off-site agricultural land uses due to project
development are stffi anticipated to result.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
28
J. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
Existing Conditions
The project site is currently used for dryland farming, primarily for barley. The
northern portion of the site is zoned R-R (Rural Residential) while the southern
portion is zoned A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture).
The Campos Verdes project site is located in an area which supports many approved
and proposed Specific Plans.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Project approval will ultimately result in the development of the land uses proposed
by the C~mpos Verdes project.
Development of the site with the uses proposed will preclude future use of the site for
dryland agriculture and wffi eliminate the open space and rural atmosphere currently
present on-site.
Project approval would also result in the placement of on-site zoning and General
Plan designations of "Specific Plan". Little in the way of land use conilicts with
adjacent land uses are anticipated to result as a consequence of development of the
C3rnpos Verdes Specific Plan.
Analysis of CbRnges ill Project Impacts
No changes in Open Space and Conservation (land use) impacts related to
development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan as compared to the
"Original" Specffic Plan are anticipated.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
29
K. Wrr JH~u~E/VEGETATION
~*ting Conditions
One naturalized biotic COmrnnn~ty, introduced ~rassland, is represented on-site. This
COmmnnlty derives its name from the predomlnnnce of introduced grass and herb
species which have replaced native vegetation as the result of grazing and other past
disturbances. It is a community which is widespread in Southern Cnllfornia today,
particularly in the Western Riverside County area
Due to their altered conditions, large, open e~panses of introduced grassland pasture
and dryland farmed areas generally support a limited abundance and diversity of
wildllfe and dryland farmed area. Several ground-nesting birds and burrowing
msmmals were observed on-site. Other species typical of grassland foraging habitat
were observed on-site as well.
The site is located within the geographical range of one species designated as
"Endangered" by the U.S. Fish and W~dlife Service, the Stephen's kangaroo rat.
Based on field observations, the site is not beheved to contain any habitat areas
suitable for the Stephen's kangaroo rat. The site provides habitat for a number of
wildlife species, however, none of these species are rare or endangered. The area is
considered to be a fairly important raptor wintering area~ This determination was
made as a result of the area being a location where rapterial birds (hawks, vultures,
eagles, owls and falcons) concentrate due to a high abundance of roosting sites, a good
supply of prey species (small mammals and birds) and suitsble hunting habitat
(generally open brushland and grassland).
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Construction activities wffi result in the removal of physical habitats through cut, fill
and other grading activities necessary for roads, building pads, utilities, fuel
modification and flood control. The first order impacts of habitat loss will be the
direct loss of vegetation and the destruction of less mobile wildlife forms.
The impacts of vegetation loss through direct removal will, in turn, have potential
effects on wildlife. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated
wildlife will either be destroyed or displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they will
crowd and disrupt local populations. Although increased competition and predation
will act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels,
either displaced or local wildlife will be lost.
Causal factors generated during human activities resulting from the construction and
inhabitation of urban land uses may be collectively termed "harassment". Harassment
is defined as those activities of man and his domestic nnimals which increase the
physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction
in wildlife populations. The most common f~m of harassment expected to accompany
development of the site include excessive construction-related noise, background noise,
3O
light and glare and the introduction of feral cats, dogs and ehfidren which are
nnnstRral predators and competitors for wiltilife.
Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic community to urban
development is not considered to be an impact of high significance, nor does it contain
the habitat for rare and endangered species and the loss of habitat will not be
significantly adverse.
Impacts to stresmbeds (or 'q~lue-line streams") on-site, regardless of whether they
contain riparian vegetation or sensitive faunal species, will be governed by the
California Department of Fish and G~me (1601-1603 permit) and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (404 permit) and their respective streambed alteration permit processes.
As a result, the required amount of replacement habitat shall be provided either on-
or off-site. Based upon these findings, it is concluded that the proposed project will
not in and of itself result in significant adverse impacts.
Although not significant in itself, the loss of introduced grassland habitat will
contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources on
a regional basis. These impacts which are considered significant include an overall
reduction in the native biotic resources of the region and the loss of secondary
foraging habitat for migratory populations of birds of prey which are winter visitors
to the region.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan maintains the same amount of area being
disrupted by grading as the "Original" project plan. Therefore, the direct impacts
associated to on-site wj]dllfe and vegetation resources with development of the
"Revised" project plan will be similar to those associated with the "Original" project
plan. The loss of on-site grassland habitat on a significant impact to off-site areas.
These cumulative (or regional) wild]ire impacts remain as a significant impact to off-
site areas for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared.
The reduction of 542 dwelling units will result in a reduction in indirect impacts (such
as "harassment") of project development upon adjacent floral and faunal resources.
No rare or endangered plants or animal species are expected to be impacted by either
the "Revised" or "Original" project plans.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
31
L. ENERGY RESOIffRCES
Existing Conditions
In its existing vacant condition, the project site consumes little or no energy, except
that needed in association with agricultural use.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Development of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan will increase energy consumption
for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration
and air conditioning, operation and construction equipment, use of miscellaneous
home appliances, energy required to produce the construction materials and all other
material aspects of the project.
Natural gas demand for the *'Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is estimated at
4,745,368 cubic feet (c.f.) per month. On-site electricity demand for the "Original"
Specific Plan is estimated at 8,375,385 kilowatts (kwh) per year. Although project
development will increase the consumption of electrical and natural gas resources the
estimated project usage is not considered to be a significant impact.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
Based upon similar usage factors as applied to energy calculations for the "OriginAl"
Specffic Plan, the "Revised" CArnpoS Verdes Specific Plan is estimated to utilize
2,781,578 cubic feet per month of natural gas and 5,079,483 kilowatts per year of
electricity. These totals represent a 41.4% reduction in natural gas usage and a 39.4%
reduction in electricity use.
m
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or'revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
32
M. SCENIC HIGHWAYS
Existing Conditions
Interstate 215 is considered both an Eligible County Scenic Highway and an Eligible
State Scenic Highway. State Route 79 (Winchester Road) is also considered an
Eligible County Scenic Highway. Several policies apply to uses proposed along these
roadway corridors.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
The "Original" Canlpos Verdes Specific Plan contains Commercial and Very High
Density Residential (17 dwelling units per acre) land uses along its perimeter with
State Highway 79. The "Original" Specific Plan contains a 24 foot Landscape
Development Zone and a 25 foot transportation corridor easement along State
Highway 79.
The project site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas which warrant
preservation. Recreational trails or other public recreation facilities are not
considered compatible with the noise levels and traffic volumes associated with
Winchester Road.
Analysis of Cbnnges in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan involves the same amount of area being
subject to landform alteration (132.9 acres) as is involved with the "Original" Specific
Plan. Short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the "Revised"
project plan is expected to remain unchanged from those associated with the
"Original" project plan.
The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the elimination of higher density residential
use~ from the "Revised" project plan will result in an incremental reduction in long-
term project-related aesthetic and scenic highway impacts. Landscape Development
Zones and required setbacks are included in the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific
Plan.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
33
N. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
F~=ting Conditions
Archaeology
A review of the archaeological site records showed no archaeological sites within the
project boundaries. However, one site (RIV - 1730) is recorded immediately south of
the project, near the 1-15 - Winchester Road intersection. The site, however, has been
previously mitigated and is no longer in existence. An on-site archaeological field
survey, conducted in November, 1988, concluded that no cultural resources were
found on the project site.
Paleontology
The project site is primarily composed of recent alluvium with exposures of the Pauba
Formation. The Pauba Formation is exposed mainly along stream channels, g~ffiies
and in road cuts. Recent grading monitoring has produced large numbers of fossil
vertebrate Animals from this formation within the Rancho CAlifornia and Murrieta
area. The earliest recorded fossils were exposed northeast of the Ynez Road and
Winchester Road intersection. Over 75 different taxa have been collected from the
Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation has contained large numbers of significant
vertebrate fossils within the Temecula area contributing to the understanding the
Pleistocene paleontology of Southern California and possibly even North America.
No paleontological resources were noted during on-site surveys conducted in
November, 1988.
Previously-Ident'ffied Project Impacts
Archaeology
The absence of any significant archaeological sites or resources on-site eliminates any
potential negative impacts that would be incurred as a result of development.
Paleontology
Project development could expose fossils through grading and other development
activities, but at the same time, can destroy these same remains. Considering its past
history of fossil discevery, the Pauba Formation is considered to have a Moderate to
High paleontological sensitivity. The recent alluvium found on-site is considered to
have a low paleontologic sensitivity. However, the recent alluvium over the project site
could be a thin veneer and grading could expose the underlying Pauba Formation.
Proper mitigation measures are required to reduce the adverse impact of development
and protect the paleontological resources of the project ares~
In response to Draft EIR comments received from the San Bernardino County
Museum, an updated Paleontological Assessment (dated December 7, 1992) was
performed on the CRmpos Verdes site by the firm of RMW Paleo Associates. The
complete text of thia Assessment is included as Atts~-hment 1 to the Response to
comments package wi~hln the Campos Verdes Final EI~ This revised Paleontological
Assessment includes: 1) an assessment of e,lating paleontologic resources unearthed
at the site. This assessment was based upon the o'nginal field surveys (perfol'ined in
November, 1988) and new findings resulting from the site's recent use as a borrow
areas; 2) given thi~ additional information concernln_F existing resources, an
assessment of potential project impacts; and 3) an updated Mitigation ProgrRm in
response to the proposed Mitigation PrOgram contained within the San Bernardino
County Museum letter. Updated mitigation measures are reflected in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for this project. This Paleontological Assessment provides the
City of Temecula with an updated assessment of paleontological resources, the result
of which are included in the Responses to Comments package within the Campos
Verdes Final EIR.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves the same mount of area being
subject to landform alteration (132.9 acres) as is involved with the "Original" Specific
Plan As such, potential impacts to cultural and scientific resources associated with
the "Revised" Specific Plan will remain unchanged from those associated with the
"Original" project plan.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
35
O. CIRCULATION
Existing Conditions
The Cs~pos Verdes project site lies adjacent to and is immediately served by
Winchester and Margarita Roads to the north and west of the site, respectively, within
the City of Temecula. The southern portion of the project site is divided by General
Kearny Road.
The review of 1990/1991 traffic volumes and roadway capacities in the project area
indicate that all existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a
Level of Service C or better e~cept for the following: Winchester Road between
Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Level of Service D); Ynez Road
between the Town Center Drive and Solana Way (Level of Service D); and Winchester
Road between Jefferson Avenue and 1-15 (Level of Service D).
Signalized intersection analyses indicated that all but the following intersections
currently operate at Service Level "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours:
Winchester Road/Jeffersen Avenue (Level of Service D during AM and PM peak
hours); Winchester Road/Ynez Road (Borderline Level of Service C/D during PM peak
hour); Rancho Cnliforaia RoadfI-15 Ramps (Level of Service D during AM peak hour
and Level of Service D/E during PM peak hour); and Rancho California Road/Ynez
Road (Level of Service D during AM and PM peak hours).
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Approximately 16,184 vehicle trips would be generated daily as a result of
development of the "Original" Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan. Morning peak hour trip
generation is estimated to be 997 trips while evening peak hour generation for the
project is estimated to be approximately 1,179 vehicle trips.
VolUme capacity comparisons were made for all roadways which would provide
primary access to the Campos Verdes project. Findings of the existing plus project
roadway service level analyzes that all of the assumed roadway segments would
operate at Level of Service "B" or better.
Traffic forecasts were developed to assess the cumulative traffic impacts of the
"Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan and other major development projects. Major
intersections expected to provide direct access to the Campos Verdes project along
Margarita Road are projected to operate at Service Level "B" or better during peak
periods in year 2000 development conditions with the project both with and without
development of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center. The Margarita Road/General
Kearny Road intersection would operate at a Level of Service "B' with the Campos
Verdes project but without the Regional Center. The five intersections along General
Kearny Road would operate at a Level of Service "A" during peak periods at ultimate
project development. ~,
36
Intersections along Campos Verdes Loop Road within the interior of the project site
would also operate at Level of Service "C" or better (using two-way stop sign controls
on the minor streets).
All off-site roadway segments and intersections in the area would operate at Level of
Service "C" or better in the year 2000 assuming the Cnmpes Verdes project is not
developed with the exception of the five roadway segments and seven intersections.
Additional intersection capacity utilization calculations were performed for all
intersections found to operate at Service Level "D" or worse with the project. The
analyses indicate that with additional intersections improvements, peak hour service
levels could be maintained or improved to Level of Service "D" or better at all
intersections.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The following discussion of changes in project impacts as a result of development of
the "Revised" Cnmpes Verdes Specific Plan are based upon additional analyses
performed by the traffic engineer, Wilbur Smith Associates. The results of their
analyses are included as Attachment "A" to this Addendure to the Draft EIR. In
addition to the project revisions previously noted within this Addendum EIR, these
additional analyses reflect the closure of Starling Street and Sanderling Way through
the project site. These analyses identify the percentage roadway utilization
contributions of the "Revised" Specific Plan as well as the project's percentage
implementation responsibility for off-site circulation improvements.
Table 7, Vehicle Trip Generation, "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan and Table
8, Vehicle Trip Generation, "Original" CAmpos Verdes Specific Plan, provide
summaries of the vehicle trip generation totals associated with the "Revised" and
"Original" project plans, respectively. A comparison of the two tables indicates that
the "Revised" CAmpos Verdes Specffic Plan generates a total of 12,268 vehicle trips per
day~ a reduction of approximately 24.2% from the total vehicle trips (16,184)
associated with the "Original" Specific Plan. The reduction in morning peak hour
trips is less (12.2% for the AM Peak Hour and 22.7% for the PM Peak Hour) due to
the trip generation characteristics of the newly-proposed elementary school. It should
be noted, however, that most of the morning peak hour trips generated by the school
would be internal to the project and therefore the resulting reduction in off-site trips
during morning peak hour could in fact approach the 24% percent level expected for
the daily period.
According to the Traffic Engineer, the reduction in the intensity of proposed land uses
within the "Revised" Campes Verdes Specific Plan and the resultant reductions in
project traffic as noted above will more than compensate for the closure of Starling
Street and Sanderling Way.
37
TABLE 7
VEmCLE TRIP GENERATION
"REVISED" CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
Planning Area/ Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use
Area 2/ 1,560 125 125
Commercinl Office
Area 3/Single 760 59 55
FAmily Residential
Area 4/ 7,200 360 518
Neighborhood
Retail Center
Area 5/Single 860 67 63
FAmily Residential
Area 6/Single 720 56 53
Fnmily Residential
Area 7/ 428 150 43
Elementary
School
Area 8/Single 560 44 41
F3mily Residential
Area 9/Single 180 14 13
FAmily Residential
Project Total 12,268 875 911
Trip distribution for the "Revised" project proposal would not vary significantly from
that associated with the "Orig~nnl" project proposal. In the assessment of off-site
impacts of the "Revised" project proposal, it is assumed that General Kearny Road will
not be extended to the east to Nicelas Road.
38
TABLE 8
VEHIC! ,E TRIP GENERATION
"ORIGINAL" CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
Planning Area/
Land Use
Area 2/
Commercial Office
Area 3/Multi
Fatally Residential
Area 4/
Neighborhood
Retail Center
Area 5/Multi
Fsmily Residential
Area 6/Single
F~mily Residential
Area 7/Single
Family Residential
Project Total
Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1,860 145 146
2,495 168 177
8,000 409 574
1,769 122 134
1,410 110 103
650 43 45
16,184 997 1,179
The Traffic Engineer has evaluated the implications of the "Revised" project land use
plan (which results in 24.2% fewer vehicle trips) on off-site traffic impacts and
associated mitigation needs. The analysis focuses on those off-site roadway segments
and intersections which were projected in the Traffic Analysis for the "Original"
Campos Verdes Specific Plan to operate at Level of Service "D" or worse (for roadway
segments) or Level of Service "E" or worse (for intersections). All other roadway linl~s
and intersection would continue to operate at Levels of Service "C" and "D" or better,
respectively.
Table 9, Comparison of Traffic Impacts lists the off-site roadway segments and
intersections which were originally projected to operate at Levels of Service "D" and
"E", respectively. This table also hsts the Levels of Service on these roadway segments
and intersections resulting from development of the "Revised "project plan.
39
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Roadway Segment
Winchester Road
(between 1-15 and Ynez
Rd.)
Ynez Road (between
Winchester Ed. and
Santa Gertrudis Creek)
Jefferson Avenue
(between Winchester Rd.
and Santa Gertrudis
Creek)
Date Street (between
Jefferson Ave. and
Jackson Ave.)
Washington Avenue
(between Cherry St. and
Date St.)
Intersections
Ynez Road/Winchester
Road
(without improvements)
(with improvements)
Jefferson
Avenue/Winchester Road
(without improvements)
(with improvements)
"Original" Project Level
of Service
"Revised" Project Level of
Service
F F
D D
D D
D D
D D
AM/PM Peak Hour Level
of Service
AM/PM Peak Hour Level
of Service
D/E D/E
.D/D D/D
F/D F/D
D/D D/D
As noted above, the "Revised" project plan results in the Levels of Service on the
roadway segments and intersections noted above which remain unchanged from those
associated with the "Originai" project plan.
Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service on the msjority of these roadway
segments were not affected since these roadways are distant from the project and
project-related traffic on these !inl~s represent a small portion of the total project
traffic on these roadways.
4O
Revisions to the proposed project land use will result in lower project-related traffic
veinrues on all on-site roadways, however, this reduction is small relative to the
cumulative development year 2000 traffic projections. No modifications are suggested
to the previously-identified recommended improvements. A comparison of
intersection service levels with previously recommended improvements is also
presented in Table 9, above.
In response to the City's request to provide general guidelines regarding
implementation schedule needs for. area roadway improvements, the following
improvements have been recommended: a) Widen General Kearny Read to its ultimate
cross-section between Margarita Read and Csmino C~mpos Verdes prior to occupation
of Planning Areas 3 and 7 of Campos Verdes Phase I; b) Install an interim signal on
Margarita Read at Solaria Way prior to 50% occupation of Campos Verdes Phase I;
and c) Complete construction of Margarita Read as a 4-lane Arterial section prior to
occupation of Planning Areas 2 and 4 of Campos Verdes Phase II.
These guidelines should be reviewed in more detail at the time that building permits
are processed for the project. Readway Capacity Utilization values (fair share
implementation responsibility assessments) identffied in the earlier Traffic Studies for
other area roadway improvements should be factored by 75.8% to adjust for the
reduction in Campos Verdes trip generation as noted above.
In spite of these measures, the level of impacts related to circulation and traffic is
considered to represent a significant adverse impact for which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
41
P. UTrI,ITIES AND SERVICES
1. Existing Conditions
The proposed project is serviced by the utility agencies noted in Table 10, Utility
Agencies.
TABI,~,, 10
UTH,rrY AGENCIES
Service
Water
Sewer
Fire
Pohce
Schools
Parks and Recreation
Natural Gas
Electricity
Solid Waste
Libraries
Health Services
Agency
Randno California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Fire Department
City of Temecula, Police Department
Temecula Valley Unified School
District
City of Temecula
Southern Cnlifornia Gas Company
Southern California Edison Company
County of Riverside, Waste
Management Department and private
haulers
.Riverside City/County Public Library
Private Hospitals
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Development of the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in an
incremental increase in demand upon all affected public utilities and services. Table
11, Public Services and Utilities, Comparisons of Impacts, indicates the extent of these
increased demands.
42
TABLE 11
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, COMPARISONS OF IMPACTS
Service
Water
Sewer
Fire
Police
Schools '
Parks and Recreation 2
Natural Gas
Electricity
Solid waste
Libraries
Health Services
"OriginRl" Specific Plan
1,530,000 gallons
816,000 gallons
2,201 new residents
5.1 sworn officers
.72 civilian personnel
1.7 patrol cars
593 students
11 acres
4,745,368 cubic ft/month
8,375,3875 kwh/yr.
3,854 tons/year
2,201 new residents
2,201 new residents
Based upon recent student generation factors
Valley Unified School District
"Revised" Specffic Plan
285,240 gallons
151,800 gallons
798 new residents
1.8 sworn officers
.26 civilian personnel
.6 patrol cars
271 students
3.9 acres
2,781,578 cubic ft./month
5,079,483 kwh/yr.
1,396 tons/yr.
798 new residents
798 new residents
provided by the Temecula
Based on the City Standard of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population
With the exception of the schools and parks factors noted above, the same generation
factors used in the Draft EIR as applied to the "Original" project plan were utilized
in the above table. Impacts to certain services (fire, libraries, health services) relate
directly to the number of project residents, the respective totals of which are noted
above. In spite of these decreases, impacts to libraries stffi remain as a significant
adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration has been prepared.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
As noted in Table 11, Public Services and Utilities, Comparison of Impacts, all
affected public service and utility agencies experience a reduction in project-related
impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Spedtic Plan as
compared to the "Original" project plan. In spite of these decreases, a significant
impact to library services remain and will stffi require a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those centalned
in the Draft EIR.
43
LIGHT AND GLARE
Existing Conditions
The project site is currently vacant and emits an insignificant amount of light and
glare. The proposed project is located within the 30 mile Special Lighting Area of the
Mt. Palomar Observatory.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
The development of 850 residential units and 23.9 ac~es of commercial and
commercial/office space within the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan wffi result
in the placement and installation of street lighting as required by the City of
Temecula. Additionally, entry monumentation and signage as well as parking lot
lighting may also require ~umination. Due to the project's location relative to the
Observatory, the on-site lighting requirements, as well as potential light and glare
caused as a result of reflections off buildings utilizing reflective materials, could
potentially result in a condition known as "skyglowJ', which interferes with the use of
the telescope at the observatory.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the ~umination of higher density residential
uses from the "Revised" project plan wffi result in an incremental reduction in light
and glare impacts.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
44
R. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
l~.~sting Conditions
Earthquakes, floods and wildland fires are natural occurrences which cannot be
prevented. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster, the County Office of
Disaster Preparedness is responsible for coordinat'mg the various agencies to assure
preparedness and recovery of such an event.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Potential impacts to the "Original" Campos Verdes Center Specific Plan such as
seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and fire
services ar discussed in their respective sections of the Draft EIR.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (798
persons) as compared to the "Original" Spocffic Plan (2,207 new residents). This
decrease of 1,403 project residents (63.7% of the previous total) results in fewer
residents being exposed to potential seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion
and blowsand, flooding, and fire hazards.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
45
IV. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS
C,~mulative Impact Analysis
The Cum~lative Impact Analysis as contained on pages V- 160 through V- 169 of the
Cnmpos Vetdes Draft EIR would remain unchanged with implementation of the
"Revised" Cn,~pos Verdes Specific Plan.
Snmm~,~v of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
As noted in Section I.C., SummSl'y AnaJysis on pages 3 and 4 of this Addendum to the
Draft EIR, significant impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan remain in the following impact areas: Seismic Safety, Noise,
Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, W~dllfe/Vegetation, Circulation and Utilities
and Services (libraries) for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been
prepared. Project revisions as reflected within the "Revised" Cnmpos Verdes Specific
Plan have resulted in significant reductions in impacts in the impact areas of flooding,
fire services, sheriff services, schools and utilities. The project-related impacts in
these areas were considered significant in the Cnmpes Verdes Draft EIR but with
implementation of the "Revised" Campes Verdes Specific Plan, they have been reduced
to a non-significant level. None of the net changes in project impacts noted result in
the creation of new unavoidable adverse environmental impacts beyond those already
identified in the Campes Verdes Draft EIR.
Alternatives to the Pronosed Project
This discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project as contained on pages V-173
through V-195 of the Csmpos Verdes Draft EIR presents several alternatives to the
proposed project. The range of alternatives selected would stffi apply to the "Revised"
Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The quantified comparisons of impact of each
alternative with the "Original" Specific Plan. as centalned in the Draft EIR have been
revised and are reflected in the Findings of Fact which w~l become part of the FinnJ
EIR.
It should be acknowledged that the Reduced Density Alternatives No. 1 and 2 within
the Draft EIR were rejected in favor of the previous proposal, referred to herein as the
"Original" Compos Verdes Specific Plan. Adoption of the "Revised" Specific Plan is
occurring with the recognition that some of the reasons for rejection of these two
alternatives may be applicable to the currently proposed (or "Revised") project plan.
Although the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan eliminates the higher density
residential uses, this land use is eliminated with the recognition that the resultant
reduction of impacts is a viable trade-off to the loss of these affordable housing
opportunities. In addition, an available stock of sjmi|ar housing is aveliable elsewhere
within the City of Temecula and adjoining areas.
46
Growth Inducing Impacts. the Relationship Between Local Short-
Term Use of Mmn's Environment and the Maintenance of Lonsr-Tem
Productivity. and Irreversible/Irretrievable Commi tsaent of Energy
Supplies and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented
The discussion of growth inducing impacts, long-term productivity, and irretrievable
commitments of resources as contsined on psges V-196 through V-198 of the Draft
EIR would remain unchanged with implementation of the "Revised" Cnmpos Verdes
Specific Plan.
47
ATTACHMENT A
SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS · PLANNERS
3600 LIME STREET · SUITE 226 * RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 " (909] 274"0566 · FAX (909) 274'9220
April 30, 1994
Mr. Barry Burnell
Principal
Turrini & Brink
3242 Halladay Street, Suite 100
Santa Ana, California 92705
OlTYOFTEI4EECULA
B%IGINEER/NG 0EPAH ~ i ~4 ENT
Re: Campos Verdes S.P. No. 1/EIR Addendum
Dear Barry,
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has carefully reviewed the recently proposed
modifications to the Campos Verdes land use plan. The proposed land use modifications
essentially involve the following:
1) All 644 multi-family residential dwelling units have been eliminated;
2) Single family residential dwelling units have increased from 206 to 308;
3) Both the commercial office and commercial retail center have been reduced in size;
and
4) An elementary school has been added to the project.
A copy of the revised land use plan is attached as Exhibit A.
These recent changes in the on-site circulation plan have precipitated the need to prepare
the following addendum material which supplements the current traffic study document.
The following sections discussed the most significant implications which these changes
have on the findings of the earlier study.
ALBANY. NY · ATLANTA. GA · CAIRO. EGYPT · CHARLESTON. SC · COLUMBIA. SC · COLUMBUS. OH · DES MOINES. IA · FALLS CHURCH. VA
HONG KONG · HOUSTON. TX · KNOXVILLE. TN · LEXINGTON. lot · LONDON, ENGLAND · LOS ANGELES. CA · MIAMI. FL * NEENAH. WI
NEW HAVEN. CT · OAKLAND. CA ° ORLANDO. FL · PITTSBURGH. PA° PORTSMOUTH. NH , PROVIDENCE. Rr · RALEIGH. NC · RICHMOND. VA
RIVERSIDE. CA · ROSELLE. IL ° SAN FRANCISCO. CA · SAN JOSE. CA , SINGAPORE · TAMPA. FL · TORONTO. CANADA , WASHINGTON. DC
EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY
Mr. Barry Burnell
Campos Verdes Modifications
April 30, 199a,
Page 2
Project Trip Generation
Presented in Tables A-1 a and A-1 b are summaries of the previous and currently proposed
project trip generation respectively. A comparison of the two indicates that the current
land use plan would generate 3,916 fewer tips per day, a reduction of approximately 24
percent. The reduction in morning peak hour trips is somewhat less due to the trip
generation characteristics of the elementary school. It should be noted however that
most of the morning peak hour trips generated by the school would be internal to the
project and therefor the resulting reduction in off-site trips during morning peak hour
would in fact approach the 24 percent level expected for the daily period.
Project Trip Distribution
Trip distribution for the modified project land use would not vary significantly from that
for the previous proposal. In the assessment of off-site impact implications of the current
proposal it is assumed that General Kearny Rd. will not be extended to the east to
Nicolas Rd.
Analysis of Traffic Impacts
WSA has evaluated the implications of the currently proposed project land use (which
results in approximately 24 percent fewer vehicle trips) on off-site traffic impacts and
associated mitigation needs. Given the de-intensification proposed for the project, the
analysis focuses only on those off-site roadway segments and intersections which were
projected in the previous study to operate at Level of Service D or worse (for roadways)
or Level of Service E or worse (for intersections). All other roadway links and
intersections would continue to operate at Level of Service C or better.
Off-site roadway segments projected in the earlier traffic study to operate at Level of
Service D or worse for year 2000 conditions with the project include:
· Winchester Rd. between I-15 and Ynez Rd. (LOS F - V/C = 1.11 );
· Ynez Rd. between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek (LOS D - V/C = 0.82);
Mr. Barry Burnell
Campos Verdes Modifications
April 30, 1994
Page 3
· Jefferson Ave. between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek (LOS D - V/C --
0.90);
· Date St. between Jefferson Ave. and Jackson Ave. (LOS D - V/C = 0.81 to 0.84);
and
· Washington Ave. between Cherry St. and Date St. (LOS D - V/C = 0.90).
With the currently proposed project land use, level of service would remain the same on
all roadway segments. On the Winchester Road segment however, the projected V/C
ratio would drop from 1.11 to 1.09. Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service on
the majority of these roadway segments were not affected since these roadways are
distant from the project and project-related traffic on these links represents such a small
portion of the total projected traffic,
Most of these roadway links are projected to serve less than 200 project trips per day and
a reduction of 48 trips or less per day has little affect on the volume to capacity ratio,
Off-site intersections projected in the earlier study to operate at Level of Service E or
worse for year 2000 conditions with the project include:
· Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.-
A.M. ICU = 90, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 94, LOS E
· Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd.-
A.M. ICU = 109, LOS F
P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
With the currently proposed land use, the reduction in peak hour traffic at the two critical
intersections would result in the following Intersection Capacity Utilization and level of
service values:
· Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.-
A.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 93, LOS E
· Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd.-
A.M. ICU = 109, LOS F
P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
Mr. Barry Burnell
Campos Verdes Modifications
April 30, 1994
Page 4
While a reduction in the ICU value was attained at the Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.
intersection, it was not sufficient to improve the level of service. The reduction in project
traffic at the Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd. intersection ranged from approximately 9
vehicles during the morning peak hour to approximately 20 vehicles during the evening
peak hour. This reduction in total traffic was not sufficient to reduce the ICU value or
improve the level of service.
Recommended Irapro vements
Revisions to the proposed project land use will result in lower project-related traffic
volumes on all on-site and off-site roadways however the reduction is small relative to the
cumulative development year 2000 traffic p~ojections. No modifications are suggested
to the previously identified recommended improvements. A comparison of critical
intersection service levels with previously recommended improvements is presented
below.
With Oriqinat Proiect
With Current Proiect
· Ynez Rd. &
Winchester Rd.
A.M. ICU = 85, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
A.M. ICU = 84, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 88, LOS D
· Jefferson Ave. & A.M. ICU = 85, LOS D
Winchester Rd. P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
A.M. ICU = 84, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
Roadway Implementation Issues
In response to the City's request to provide general guidelines regarding implementation
schedule needs for area roadway improvements WSA has developed the following
recommendations:
Widen General Kearny Rd. to its ultimate cross-section between Margarita Rd. and
Camino Campos Verdes prior to occupation of Planning Area 3 and 7 portion of
Campos Vardes Phase I.
Install interim signal on Margarita Road at S~lana Way prior to 50 percent occupation
of Campos Verdes Phase I.
Mr. Barry Burnell
Campos Verdes Modifications
April 30, 1994
Page 5
Complete construction of Margarita Road 4-lane Arterial section prior to occupation
of Planning Area 2 and 4 portions of Campos Verdes Phase II.
These guidelines should be reviewed in more detailed at the time that building permits are
processed for the project.
Please note the following levels of project impact on Margarita Rd. and General Kearny
Rd. are expressed as the percent of the maximum daily traffic capacity (utilized by
Campos Verdes traffic):
Margarita Rd.
Solana Way to General Kearny Road - 6 to 8 percent
General Kearny Road to Winchester Road - 10 to 17 percent
· General Kearny Rd.
Eastern project boundary to Margarita Rd. - 1 to 14 percent
Roadway Capacity Utilization values (fair share implementation responsibility
assessments) identified in the earlier study documents for other area roadway
improvements should be factored by 76 percent to adjust 'for the reduction in Campos
Verdes trip generation,
Wilbur Smith Associates trusts that this addendum analysis will assist City of Temecula
staff in their ongoing review of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Please feel free to
contact me at any time if you have questions regarding this material.
Sincerely yours,
Wilbur Smith Associates
Robert A. Davis
Principal Transportation Engineer
Z
ATTACHMENT B
CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE TEMECULA V~,T,T,EY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Pat~cia B. Novotney, Ed.D.
RECEIVED
APR 2
Ans'd ..........
April 18, 1994 (supplements February 28, 1994 and March 8, 1994 comments)
Steve Jiannino
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Campos Verdes Specific Plan Conditions
Dear Mr. Jiannino:
BOARD O¢ EDUCATION
The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the proposed Specific
Plan as presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994:
· Elementary School Site
We understand that the developer has included an I 1.1 acre school site in an Alternative Land Use Plan. The District
is in favor of this site, which could become a part of the mitigation agreement. {ref 3/7/94 dwg.)
Although the site will need formal State Department of Education (SDE) approvals, many of the SDE areas of concern
(airport proximity, flood plain, dam inundation) are not issues with the proposed site.
The District will require good pedestrian, bus and parent vehicle access to this Site.
· School Facilities Mitigation Agreement
The number of new dwelling units is being determined for this development. Through new housing student generation
data, we have determined the following generation rates in the Temecula Valley Unified School District:
# of students per dwelling unit
Elementary School: .39
Middle School: .24
High School: .25
Total .88
The number of new students is ~eterminecl Dy multiplying the new dwelling units by th~se factol s, which for a 306-unit
single-family development would be 119 elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students.
Prior to Specific Plan approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School
District to ensure adequate facilities for these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General
Plan and the General Plan implementation Program.
Section V D.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School
District information as indicated in the attachments.
If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340.
Director of Facilities Development
co: Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintender~'
John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst
Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc.
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / {909) 676-2661
April 18, 1994
Campoe Vetdes Specific Plan Conditions
Section V D.5
(TVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/18/94)
SCHOOLS
a. Existino Conditions
The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The
District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5) schools, two middle (grades 6-8} schools and two high (grades 9-12) schools.
The attached Table, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent
t>uilding capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are
operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommodate the
overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed.
b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship
The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation.
· Attached Dwellino Unlike:
Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit
Detached Dwellinq Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.39; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.25 students per unit
The proposed 306 single-family residential units located in Campos Verdes will generate approximately 269 students (119
elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned above). Because a single
e~ementary site, and no middle or high school site is proposed within the project boundaries, the estimated 119 elementary students
could be accommodated on-site, but the middle and high school students would require accommodation off-site. As previously
mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building capacity. The additional students generated by
~hLS proloot will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The Campos Vetdes project lies within the boundaries Of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. The City General Plan adopted
~n October 1993, recluires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts.
c. Genera/Plan Implementation Pro~yrarn
In accordance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact
of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District,
prior to Specific Plan approvals, The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following financing mechanisms:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Payment of school fees
Dedication of land and/or facilities
Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District
Levying of a special tax
Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District
d. Level of Sionificance After Mitioation
Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an
,~significant level.
C)
CAMPOS VERDES
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN
,/
P.A. 2
COMMERC~ALJ
OFFICY
DETENTION
10,4 AC
MEADOWVIEW
" CAMPOS VERDES
; MEDIUM ._-::.,.r~: r t
I' -""
I
,, \
P.A. 4 \ P.A. 3
MULll-FAMiLY ~- SCHOOL'
17.4 AC \ 1L1AC
348 DU \
\ ,~'
PARK
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING ~ FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348
(STATE CL~kI~GHOUSE NU'~ER 89020189)
FOR ~ CA1VIPOS V'ERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
The City of Temecula (the "City") hereby certifies the Campos Verdes Specific
Plan Final Environmental' Impact Report, State ClearinEhouse Nnmber 89020139,
which consists of the Draft EIR, a Response to Comments pS~lraEe and an Addendum
EIR (collectively referred to as the "Fi. AI EIR" or "FEIR"), and finds that it has been
completed in compliance with the California Enviro-mental Quality Act (Public
Resource Cede Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and that the City of Temecula has
received, reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, all hearings,
and submissions of testimony from offidals and Departments of the City, the
Applicant, the public and other municipalities and agencies.
Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as
any and all information in the record, the City of Temecula hereby makes these
Findings of Fact pursuant to, and in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public
Resource Cede as follows:
BACKGROUND
The Campos Verdes Specffic Plan (the "proposed project") was orj~nally
submitted to the County of Riverside for screencheck review on May 3, 1989 as a
portion of the "Rancho California Commerce Center Comprehensive General Plan
Amendment 179 and Zone Change 5181 and 5188." The Rancho California Commerce
Center consisted of 1,049 acres generally situated adjacent to and east of Interstate
15 which at the time was in the unincorporated area of Rancho California, within
Riverside County. The 1,049 acre site was situated on both sides of Winchester Road
with the portion of the project south of Winchester Road located on the east side of
Ynez Road. The project involved a Comprehensive General Plan Amendment (#179)
to the Rancho Villages Policy Plan, two Zone Cban,~es (5181 and 5188), and the filing
of two subdivision maps (Tentative Tract 23336 and Conceptual Plot Plan) in order
to conform with and accommodate the land uses that were proposed.
Land uses proposed by the Rancho California Commerce Center included three
Vffiages as described below:
Camnos Verdes - This village encompassed 135 acres located immediately south
of Winchester Read and adjacent to and east of the proposed Regional Center. This
development area was proposed to contain a range of residential densities totaling a
maximum of 1,225 dwelling units as well as 10 acres of neighborhood commercial
uses.
Winchester Hills - This village encompassed 721 acres located east of Interstate
15 and north of Winchester Road. This area was proposed for a 646 acre Business
Park and 75 acres of Retail Service/Commercial rises which were intended to generally
serve the needs of employees workin~ within or customers utilizing the proposed
Business Park.
Regional Center - This area encompassed 193 acres located immediately south
of Winchester Road and east of Ynez Road. The m~jority of this area was proposed
for a regional shopping center containing a regional mall, a 500 room hotel and
specialty retail, office, limited residential and retail land uses. The Regional Center
was, at that time, intended to provide both local and regional commercial
opportunities to future on-site residents as well as persons residing outside the subject
property.
Subsequently, the Rancho CsJll~ornia Commerce Center was split into four
separate projects which included: the Campos Verdes Specific Plan (the "proposed
project") located east of Margarita Read and north of General Kearny Road; the
Winchester Hills Specific Plan located east of and a~jacent to Interstate 15, extending
east to Margarita Road on the north side of Winchester Read; Winchester Meadows
located north of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road; and the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan located between Ynez Road and the proposed alignment
of Margarita Read and south of Santa Gertrudis Creek. A revised Notice of
Preparation for the Campos Verdes project was prepared in February, 1990 by the
County of Riverside.
The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan currently encompasses 230.8 acres
and proposes 77.56 acres of mixed Retail/Office/Hotel use, 300 dwelling units proposed
as residential fiats over office space, and 97.8 acres of Reta~ Commercial core use.
The Winchester Hills Specific Plan encompasses 571.6 acres and proposes 1,948
dwelling units, 10.0 acres of schools, 29.8 acres of parks, and 137.1 acres of
commercial/office/business park uses. No project applications have been submitted for
Winchester MeadoWs.
Kemper Real Estate Management Company (the "Applicant") proposes the 132.9
acre Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1 as a master planned mixed use development.
The current development proposal involves a total of 308 dwelling units, 10.8 acres
of park, 19.8 acres of commercial/office/church uses, a 10.7 acre elementary school, a
5.8 acre detention basin and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways is proposed. In order to
accommodate the proposed land uses, a zone change is also required.
On December 1, 1989 the City of Temecula was incorporated, approximately
seven months after the original applications for the proposed project were ~ed with
the County of Riverside. The nnincorporated area in which the proposed project is
located became part of the newly incorporated City of Temeculs_ As a result of the
City's incorporation, the application for a General Plan Amendment and associated
approvals through the County of Riverside were no longer applicable.
2
These three projects, Campos Verdes, Winchester Hills and Teme~,is RegiOn-l
Center are being processed concurrently thro~L~h the City of Temecula. These three
projects, in total, are referred to as the "Urban Core" projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An Initial Study for Campos Verdes was prepared by the County of Riverside
on March 12, 1990, which identified potential environmental imp~s attributable to
the proposed project. These poten~i~ impacts include: Landform and Topography;
Historical Land Use; Geology and Seismiclty; Hydrology; Floodin~ and Drainage; Open
Space and Conservation; Climate and Air Quality; Soils and Agriculture; Noise;
Hazardous Materials and Wastes; Archaeological/Cultural Resources; Biology; Public
Facilities and Services (water and sewer, fire/police service, solid waste, utilities, parks
and recreation, schools, airports, libraries, health services); Circulation and Traffic;
Energy Conservation; Scenic Environment; Trails; Fiscal Impacts; Growth Inducing
Impacts; and, Cumulative Impacts. In addition, the Initial Study identified the
necessity to analyze Project Alternatives and provide a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Progrsm. As a result of the Initial Study, it was determined that the
proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required.
The Initial Study was processed through the County of Riverside until June
1990, when it was forwarded to the City of Temecula for processing as a result of the
City's incorporation. A Special Preliminary Development Review Committee Meeting
was held by the City of Temecula in December, 1990 for the proposed project.
The FEIR analyzed both project and cumulative effects on the potential
environmental impacts identified by the Initial Study. The FEIR developed and
identified a variety of mitigation measures to minimize, reduce, avoid or compensate
for the potential adverse effects of the proposed project.
The FEIR also discussed a number of potential alternatives to the proposed
project, including: 1) the "No Project" Alternative; 2) the Existing Zoning Alternative;
3) the Reduced Density Alternative No. 1; 4) the Reduced Density Alternative No. 2;
5) the Increased Office/Commercial Alternative; 6) the Reduced Office/Commercial
Alternative; and 7) Alternate Project Sites.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review by the
City of Temecula between July 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992 in cenformance with
Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines. This 45-day public review period
(per Section 15087 (c) of State CEQA Guidelines) resulted in the receipt of comments
from a variety of governmental agencies and other responsible parties. Responses to
the comments received regarding the proposed project and the Draft EIR were
prepared, and then reviewed and revised by City staff. This Response to Comments
package is included in the FEIR.
3
Subsequent to the circulation of the Draft EIR, additional consultant studies
were prepared and additional project comments were received from the City of
Temecula These consultant studies and any additional mitigation measures
contained therein as well as responses to the City's comments are contained within
an Addendnm EIR which is also part of the FEIR. A second Addendnm EIR was
prepared in order to identify and discuss the revisions recently made to the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan.
Public hearings will be held on the project proposal and its associated
environmental impacts by the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City
Council prior to the certification of the FEIR.
The City of Temecula makes the following findings in adopting a Resolution
certifying the FEIt~ Section 1 of these Findings contains the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Section 2 discusses those potential environmental effects of the
proposed project which are not sj~ificant or which have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance. Section 3 discusses the significant unavoidable environmental effects
of the proposed project which cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Section 4 discusses the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project. Section 5
discusses the alternatives to the proposed project discussed in the FEIR. Section 6
discusses the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project. Section 7
contains the Section 15091 and 15092 findings. The findings set forth in each section
are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record of the proposed
project. Appendix A to this Findings package contains a copy of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the proposed project.
4
SECTION 1
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The FEIR identffied and discussed s'lgni~P~nt effects which will occur as a
result of the proposed project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures
discussed in the FEIR, these effects can be mitigated to levels of insignificance except
for unavoidable signffjcant impacts in the areas of noise, chmate and air quality, and
agriculture, as identffied in Section 3 of these findings.
Having reduced the effects of the proposed project by adopting the conditions
of approval and monitored mitigation measures and having balanced the benefits of
the proposed project against the proposed project's potential unavoidshle adverse
impacts, the City of Temecula hereby determines that the benefits of the proposed
project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts, and that the unavoidable
adverse impacts are nonetheless "acceptable," based on the following overriding
considerations:
1. Construction of the proposed project will provide a variety of housing
types and styles as well as on-site commercial, office, church and elementary school
uses.
2. The proposed project provides cemphmentary land uses (commercial,
office, church, elementary school and residential) within a single mixed use project
thereby reducing traffic, noise and air quality impacts associated with automobile trips
headed for similar destinations at a further distance.
3. Construction of the proposed project will provide commercial and office
uses that will accommodate a share of the projected community and regional work
force by creating long-term employment opportunities thereby enhancing the
jobs/housing balance for the area. Additional short-term construction-related jobs will
also be created.
4. The proposed on-site commercial and office land uses will serve residents
of the project site and those residing in a~acent areas.
5. The proposed project provides a variety of recreational amenities
including a 10.8 acre public park, a landscaped flood control detention basin, and
Class II bicycle lanes which will serve residents of the project site and those residing
in a~acent areas.
6. Provision of traffic mitigation measures will provide overall mitigation
to address the circulation impacts which are directly attributable to the proposed
project and which are indirectly attributable to the proposed project's incremental
contribution to cumulative traffic impacts and will therefore benefit the region by
adding capacity to critical intersections ~d roadways. The proposed project
5
implements the City's Master Plan of Highways.
7. Drainage facilities (i.e. a detention basin) wffi be constructed on-site to
better contain and direct the flow of stormwater runoff through and downstream of
the project site. This facility will minimize flooding hazards both on-site and
downstream of the project.
8. The proposed project will provide funding for various regional
infrastructure elements through the City's Mitigation Fee Program.
9. Approval of a Specific Plan provides the necessary master planning to
insure provision of necessary infrastructure, desired amenities and common landscape
and design elements which would not be possible if the property were developed using
a "piecemeal" approach.
6
SECTION 2
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT
SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH HAVE BEEN MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
All FEIR mitigation measures (as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program attached as Appendix A to these Findings) have been incorporated by
reference into the conditions of approval for the proposed CAmpos Verdes Specific
Plan.
The City of Temecula has determined that these mitigation measures and
conditions of approval will result in a substantial mitigation of the following effects
and that these effects are not considered signifirmnt or they have been mitigated to
a level of insignificance. The mitigation measures referred to below are contained
within the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached as Appendix A to these
Findings.
Slooes and Erosion
Potential Imnact: Development of the site will require alteration of the existing
landform. Approximately 2,616,743 cubic yards of cut and 376,123 cubic yards of
will be required. With appropriate permits, the balance of the earthwork will be
relocated on the adjacent Temecula RegionAl Center site. Cut and fffi slopes are
anticipated to be stable at ratios of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter to heights often
feet.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 15 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Potential Imnact: Slope erosion on-site is a significant concern regarding surficial
stability.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 16 and 17 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the idenfified impact.
7
Floodin~
Potential Impact: The development and construction phase of the project will
potentially create short-term impacts related to erosion and sedimentation of Santa
Gertrudis Creek due to creation of exposed so~s during project grading.
Findin2s: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 19 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Potential Impact: The development phase of the project will create impermeable on-
site surfaces, thereby increasing on-site rimoff. Increased site runoff, as well as
upstream surface flows, will be accommodated by the proposed drainage system. The
increased flow rates from the project will contribute to cumulative increased flow
rates downstream primarily to Murrieta Creek and the potential for flooding in
downstream areas containing undersized facilities. When channel improvements are
completed, on-site flood hazards associated with the 100-year floodplain adjacent to
Santa Gertrudis Creek will be eliminated.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 18, 20 and 21 within
the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Wind Erosion and Blowsand
Potential Impact: Although the project site lies outside the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand
Areas designated by the Riverside County General Plan, construction activities
(primarily site preparation and grading) will generate fugitive dust. An average of .05
tons per day of particulate emissions is estimated to occur.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 6 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impact.
Water Quality
Potential Imnact: Project development will alter the composition of surface runoff by
grading the site surfaces, construction of'impervious streets, roofs and parking
8
facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain
system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including
pesticicles, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and
other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the increased
degradation of water quality downstream.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 22 and 23 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impacts:
Toxic Substances
Potential Impact: The presence of hazardous material within the majority of the
project site is nnlikely, however, due to the past agriculture use of the site, there
remains the potential for near surface soil contamination due to residues from prior
pesticide use. Also present within the site are several fffi areas. Although no
hazardous materials were observed within these fffis, there remains the inherent
uncertainty as to the subsurface fffi contents.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 24 and 25 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program ~ mitigate the identified impact.
Potential Impact: Project development could potentially produce small quantity
generators of hazardous waste. Small quantity generators are businesses that produce
less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month (such as drycleaners, photo
and c~mera stores, or stores dealing with paints or solvents). However, the exact
businesses to be included on-site are currently .nknown.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 26 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impact.
Onen Space and Conservation
Potential Impact: Project development will preclude future use of the site for pasture
crops and dryland agriculture as well as eliminate open space and the rural
atmosphere currently present on-site. Ho~er, the project is designed to minimize
9
land u~ COnfilCt8 with existin~ and surrounding land uses as wen as the confilc~s
between on*site residential and office/commercial uses through e~tensive use of
Landscape Development Zones.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact ident'Lfled in the
FEIR to an insignifi~nt level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 17 on page II-15 of the
Draft EIR will mitigate the identffied impact.
Enerev Resources
Potential Imnact: Project development wffi increase consumption of energy for motor
vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration and air
conditioning, operation and construction equipment, use of miscellaneous home
appliances, and energy required to produce the construction materials and all other
material aspects of the project. On-site natural gas demand is estimated to be
2,781,528 cubic feet per month. On-site electricity consumption is estimated to be
5,079,483 kilowatt hours (kwh) per year.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 27 and 28 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Scenic Highways
Potential Imnact: Planning Areas 4 and 5 of the proposed project are adjacent to
Winchester Road, an Eligible Scenic Highway.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures and features
incorporated into the l~roposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 29 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impacts.
Cultural and Scientific Resources
Potential Impact: Possible adverse impact to the Pauba Formation, of moderate to
high paleontological sensitivity, may occur as a result of project development. No
archaeological sites have been observed with project boundaries, however, potential
impacts to 1lnl~nowIl cultural resources may_Occur.
10
Findinas: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insigni~nt level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 30 and 31 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impact.
Water and Sewer Service
Potential Impact: Project developmen~ 'will increase the demand on water service in
the area. The total average day demand for the project is estimated at .816 million
gallons dally. The project wffi require on-site water lines connecting to existing
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) facilities in order to provide water service
to the site. The project is estimated to generate .151 million gallons per day of
sewage.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 32 and 33 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Potential Impact: No reclaimed water lines or facilities in the project area currently
exist. E1VIVfD will require the project to construct reclaimed water lines on-site so that
when the regional system, which is currently in the planning process, is complete, the
project can utilize reclaimed water for specffic irrigation purposes.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 33 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Fire Service
Potential Impact: Project development wffi increase the demand upon existing fire
protection services. These impacts are due to the increase in emergency or public
service calls generated by additional residential and commercial development.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 34 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the iden~fiied impacts.
11
Sheriff Services
Potential Imnact: The increase in population as a result of project development wffi
increase criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts and vandalism. As the
population and use of an area increases, additional manpower needs are required to
meet the increased demand.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above fmding is made in that Mitigation Measure 35 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Progrnm wffi mitigate the identified impacts.
Schools
Potential Imnact: The proposed project will generate an estimated 271 students
requiring accommodation and increasing demand within off-site Temecula Valley
Unified School District facilities.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 36 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Utilities
Potential Ironact: Project development will place additional demand on existing
electrical supplies. The project is estimated .to utffize 5,079,483 kilowatt hours (kwh)
of electricity per year. The demand for natural gas will also increase with project
development. The project is estimated to consume 2,781,578 cubic feet of natural gas
per month. These demand projections do not exceed the service capabilities of the
respective utility agencies. While the proposed project will place additional demand
upon phone service, the phone company has indicated that these demands are well
within the service parameters of the General Telephone Company.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 38 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
12
Parks ,~,,d Recreation
Potential Impact: The proposed project will increase demand for park and recreational
facilities. The Quimby Act requirements established by the Temecula Community
Service District wffi be satisfied by the proposed 10.8 acre park/detention basin on-
site.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 37 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Progrsm will mitigate the identffied impact.
Solid Waste
Potential Impact: Project development will increase the amount of solid waste
generated on-site, which in turn will increase the demand upon waste haulers serving
the area and wffi incrementally reduce the lifespan of the affected landfffi. The project
is anticipated to generate 1,396 tons of solid waste per year. This increase in solid
waste will incrementally shorten the lifespan of the Double Butte Landfffi.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 39 through 41 within
the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Health Services
Potential Imnact: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of project
development. As no adverse impacts are anticipated, no mitigation measures are
proposed.
Light and Glare
Potential Impact: Project development will result in the installation of street lights
as required by the City of Temecula. Entry monumentation and signage may also
require ~umination. These lighting requirements could result in a condition known
as "skyglow," which interferes with the use of the telescope at the Mt. Palomar
Observatory.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
13
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 42 and 43 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impact.
Disaster Preparedness
Potential Impact: Potential impacts associated with the proposed project relative to
seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind and blowsand, flooding and fire services are
discussed in their respective sections of the Draft EIR.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insigni6cant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures throughout the
Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impacts.
SECTION 8
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
The City has determined that certain environmental effects (both project-
related and cumulative) cannot be feasibly or objectively mitigated to a level of
insignificance although the FEIR cont~in~ mitigation measures and conditions of
approval imposed on the proposed project will provide a substantial mitigation of
these effects. Consequently, in accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared (See Section
1) to substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable adverse
environmental effects because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project. The
mitigation measures referred to below are contained within the Mitigation Monitoring
Program which is attached as Appendix A to these Findings.
PROJECT-RELATED EFFECTS
Seismic Safety
Potential Imnact: The site will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar
fault alignment running parallel to the western project boundary. Additionally, it is
possible that a 7.0 earthquake along the Elsinore fault zone could create peak ground
acceleration on-site of 0.63g with a maximum repeatable acceleration of 0.41g. The
site may experience secondary impacts related to a seismic event which include
possible liquefaction impacts and possible inundation due to the failure of Skinner
Dam.
Findings: This impact ident'Lfxed in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce, to the extent
feaSible, the adverse environmental effects.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measures 1
through 3 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Noise
Potential Impact: Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient
noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment can reach high levels.
Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed proj_ect wffi reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmental effect.
15
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation
Measure 4 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi partially mitigate the
identified impact.
Potential Impact: Areas along General Kearny Road and Margarita Road may
experience noise levels over 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Future noise
increases due to the project are less than 3 dBa except along an undeveloped portion
of Margarita Road. The cumulative noise impacts are considered significant adverse
environmental impacts.
Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation
Measure 5 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the
identified impact.
Climate and Air Qu~iltv
Potential Impact: An estimated .05 tons of particulate emissions wffi be released per
day as a result of dust generated by construction equipment and winds during the
grading phase and site preparation.
Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation
Measure 6 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Potential Imnact: The project will generate long-term impacts which include mobile
emissions resulting from the estimated 12,268 daily vehicle trips, as well as stationary
emissions resulting from the estimated 5,079,483 kwh of electridty consumed yearly
and the 2,781,578 cubic feet of natural gas consumed monthly. The pollutaut
generation associated with the proposed project is considered "significant" by the
SCAQMD Handbook for Preparing EIR's.
Findings: The impacts identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project wffi reduce, to the extent feasible, the
16
adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above finRing is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation
Measure 7 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Agriculture
Potential Impact: Project development will remove from production existing pasture
crops and dry farmland, as well as resultin~ in the permanent loss of future
agriculture productivity on "Prime Farmland" which is considered a significant adverse
impact. Development of the proposed urban uses could hasten the conversion of other
agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land
value. However, much of the surrounding land is also being processed for urban
development in accordance with the City of Temecula, General Plan. Therefore, long-
term agricultural use is not envisioned for the project area and no long-term land use
conflicts are anticipated as a result of project development.
Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificauce.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1). No mitigation measures
are proposed.
Wildlife and Vegetation
Potential Imvact: Construction activities will remove physical habitats through cut
and fill as well as other grading operations resulting in the direct loss of habitat and
the less mobile wildlife forms. Impacts resulting from vegetation loss affects the
wildlife associated with that vegetation by either destroying it or displacing it to
adjacent habitat. Additional impacts to wildlife results from increasing harassment
from eats, dogs, children, light and glare, background noise and excessive construction
related noises. Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland community to urban
development will reduce areawide dryland farming foraging habitat for raptors (birds).
Findings: This impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce to the extent
feasible the adverse environmental effects.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measures 8 and
9 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi partially mitigate the identified
impacts.
17
Circulation and Traffic
Potential Ironact: The project wffi generate an estimated 12,268 vehicle trips per day
and 85,876 vehicle miles travelled daily. Without mitigation, service levels "D" and "F"
within the Cumulative Development Scenario (including the project) could be expected
along segments of Winchester Road, Date Street, Jefferson Avenue, Washington
Avenue and Ynez Road. The Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis indicates that
two intersections CYnez Road/Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue/Winchester
Road) within the Cumulative Development Scenario (including the project) would
operate at a Levels of Service "D", "E" or "?' during the morning or evening peak
hours. Additional roadway improvements will result in all affected intersections
operating at Level of Service "D" or better.
Findings: This impact as identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignfficance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce, to the extent
feasible, the adverse environmental effects.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measures 10
through 13 within the Mitigation Monitoring Progrsm will partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Libraries
Potential Ironact: The generation of approximately 798 residents as a result of project
development will increase overall community demand for library services.
Findings: This impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce to the extent
feasible the adverse environmental effects.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measure 14
within the Mitigation Monitoring Program measure will partially mitigate the
identified impact.
18
SECTION 4
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126(g) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires considerations of the
ways that the proposed project could be considered growth-inducing.
Development of the proposed project will add 72.7 acres containing 308 low and
medium density residential use, 19.8 acres of commercial/office/church uses, 10.8 acres
of parks, a 5.9 acre detention basin, a 10.7 acre elementary school and 13.0 acres of
roads to the area
As the proposed project is located in an area undergoing rapid urbani zation and
is generally surrounded by future urban uses, significant growth-inducing impacts are
difficult to foresee. With the exception of minor extensions, the necessary public
utility infrastructure is in place. Street improvements will be required to
accommodate projected traffic volumes and utilities that require extension.
The growth in the area represented by the proposed project and surrounding
projects (Winchester Hills and Temecula RegionAl Center Specific Plans) is occurring
in accordance with the City of Temecula, Draft General Plan. Several land
development proposals have been prepared for vacant adjacent properties, therefore,
the proposed project is not considered growth-inducing to these surrounding areas.
Growth in an area generally begins with the expansion of residential uses which
ultimately creates the need for commercial and retail facilities as well as employment
needs. The proposed project will provide residents of the City of Temecula with
commercial and office uses which, in turn, will reduce vehicle miles travelled in order
to find similar services.
19
SECTION 5
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the proposed project described in the FEIR were considered. The
alternatives discussed in the FEIR constitute a reasonable range of potential options
necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The FEIR identified the "No Project" and
"F~istinE Zoning' alternatives as the environmentally superior alternatives; however,
the City did not select these alternatives but approved the proposed project with the
FEIR mitigation measures which will provide a substantial mitigation of the potential
environmental effects. Consequently, in accordance with Section 15093 of the State
CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared (See
Section 1) to substantiate the City's decision to reject the environmentally preferred
alternatives because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project.
Alternative 1 - The "No Project" Alternative
Descrivtion of Alternative: The FEIR desm'ibes the "No Project" alternative as a
continuation of existing undeveloped conditions supporting passive open space uses
on the project site.
Comnarison of Effects: The "No Project" alternative would eliminate the
environmental effects of the proposed project identified in Sections 2 and 3 herein.
However, the "No Project" alternative would also not provide the beneficial effects that
are associated with the proposed project. The "No Project" alternative would not
provide a range of housing opportunities and proposed commercial, office and
recreational uses in cenformance with the City of Temecula, Draft General Plan. The
"No Project" alternative would eliminate employment opportunities that would
enhance the jobs/housing balance of the Temecula/Rancho California area. In
addition, other project benefits lost with the "No Project" alternative include provision
of a 10.8 acre park site and improving the on-site and adjacent roadways. The
participation in the contributing of funds or facilities for public services would also
be lost with the "No Project" alternative.
Finding: The "No Project" alternative is not feasible as this alternative fails to meet
project the objectives identified in the FEIR or to provide any of the benefits set forth
herein.
Facts: The above finding is made in that it has been determined that it is
uneconomical to maintain the property in its current natural state over the long-term.
This rationale is based on the site's location in relation within a developing urban
area. Pressure to develop the land for higher economic uses will continue. Therefore,
the "No Project" alternative may postpone rather than preclude use of the property
for more intensive land uses.
2O
ARernafive 2 - Ezisfing Zoning ARernafive
Description of Alternative: Alternative 2 represents development of the proposed
project site pursuant to the existing R-R (Rural Residential) zoning designation which
provides two dwelling units per acre, and the A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture) zoning
designation which permits one dwelling unit per 20 a~es resulting in a total of 79
rural residential units or lots. This alternative would not require a Change of Zone.
Comnarison of Effects: Alternative 2 is identified as being an environmentally
superior alternative. Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to the proposed project,
although several would be incrementally reduced significantly in scope. Grading
would be reduced due to the reduced residential densities proposed. However, grading
could occur without a Master Grading Plan due to uncoordinated construction
occurring on different parcels. Fewer project residents and structures would be
exposed to regional seismic hazards. Anticipated runoff generated by this Alternative
is significantly reduced due to the absence of large concrete pads for commercial areas
and parking lots. This Alternative would reduce vehicular trips by 93.5% which would
signfficantly reduce impacts to the area-wide circulation system. However, some
cenflict may occur locally between urban traffic flows found in the area of farm
equipment traffic serving the site. The 93.5% reduction in vehicle trips will also
reduce both on- and off-site noise impacts. However, most of the projected noise
impacts in the area are due to other development projects already planned Or
approved in the area. The 93.5% reduction in vehicle trips will also reduce air quality
impacts. Alternative 2 reduces impacts to open space and would allow future use of
portions of the site for agriculture. This Alternative would not preclude future
agricultural use of "Prime" soils on-site, therefore, no significant adverse agricultural
impact would occur. Biological impacts would be decreased with this Alternative.
Any additional areas preserved within this Alternative are composed of species not
considered to be of biological significance. Impacts associated with historic and
prehistoric resources will be reduced due to reduction of grading. Public utilities and
services impacts related to fire/police protection, natural gas, electricity, solid waste,
and 'water and sewer would be reduced. The lower residential densities proposed by
this Alternative could be accommodated by individual septic tanka and on-site wells
rather than facilities provided by the Rancho California Water District and Eastern
Municipal Water District. Alternative 2 would result in incrementally decreased
impacts to school and park facilities as compared to the proposed project. This
Alternative would also result in the reduced amount of park and school mitigation fees
as compared to the fees collected from the proposed project.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 2, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (S~e Section 1). Alternative 2 was rejected
21
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative eliminRtes
provision of a range of residential dwelling unit types, commercial, and office land
uses in an area experiencing increasing demand for such uses. Alternative 2
eliminates the improvement of an-site and adjacent roadways. Although Alternative
2 allows agriculture uses on-site, due to the availability of public services in the area,
given the high cost of irrigation water, limited prime soil distribution, and economic
factors associated with development, long-term agriculture use is not considered
feasible for the subject property.
Alternative 8 - Reduced Density Alternative No. 1
Description of Alternative: Alternative 3 proposes 389 dwelling units. Commercial,
cemmercial/office, and park/detention basin uses associated with this Alternative are
identical to those associated with the project proposal.
Comnarison of Effects: Impacts of Alternative 3 associated with Seismic Safety,
Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation,
W~dlife/Vegetation, Agriculture, and HAsteric and Prehistoric Resources, would be
incrementally increased as compared to impacts associated with the currently
proposed project. This Alternative would increase daily vehicular trips by 26.3%. The
26.3% increase in traffic would increase on- and off-site noise generation. As with
Alternative 2, most of the projected noise impacts in the area are due to other
development projects in the area. Vehicular emissions relative to air quality would be
increased by approximately 26.3%; these emissions are stffi considered a significant
impact by the SCAQMD.
Alternative 3 would also incrementally increase the impacts associated with water and
sewer services, energy consumption and solid waste generation. Impacts to police and
fire protection would also be incrementally increased as compared to the proposed
project. Impacts to school facilities would be increased as a result of the addition of
81 dwelling units proposed by Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would be required to
provide 5.03 acres to satisfy the Q~imby Act requirement for park acreage. The 10.8
acre park/detention basin proposed by this Alternative adequately meets this
requirement.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 3, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, w~l substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 3 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not
selected because impacts associated with traffic, noise, air quality, water, sewer, solid
waste generation and other public servi~s wffi be increased. No significant
22
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced with this
Alternative.
Alternative 4- Commercial/Industrial Alternative
Description of Alternative: Alternative 4 proposes 615 dwelling units resulting in an
addition of 307 dwelling nnitS as compared to the proposed project. Commercial,
commercial/office and park/detention basin uses associated with this Alternative are
identical to those associated with the project proposal.
Comparison of Effects: The impacts associated with Alternative 4 could be potentially
increased as compared to the proposed project in the following areas: Seismic Safety,
Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation,
Wildlife/Vegetation, Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. The daily
vehicular trips associated with this Alternative are anticipated to increase
approximately 99.6% as compared to the proposed project. As the traffic would be
increased by 99.6% with this Alternative, the an- and off-site noise associated with
traffic generation wffi be incrementally increased. Cumulative noise impacts are due
to other development projects in the area Additionally, the 99.6% increase in traffic
will incrementally increase the impacts to air quality associated with vehicular
emissions. SCAQMD considers the air quality impacts associated with this
Alternative to be significant.
Impacts associated with water and sewer demand, solid waste, fire and police
protection, schools, electricity and natural gas are also increased as compared to the
proposed project. This Alternative is required to provide 7.9 acres of parks to satisfy
Quimby Act requirements. The 10.8 acre park/detention basin proposed by this
Alternative satisfies this requirement.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 4, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, wffi substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 4 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not
selected because impacts associated with traffic, noise, air quality, water, sewer, solid
waste generation and other public services wffi be increased. No significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced with this
Alternative.
Alternative 5- Residential/Commercial Alternative
Description of Alternative: Alternative 5,_propeses an additional 22.2 acres of
Office/Commercial use. Acreage totals associated with proposed Park and Detention
23
Basin uses are similar to those associated with the proposed project. This results in
the provision of 473 dwelling units, an increase of 165 dwelling units as compared to
the proposed project.
Comnarisen of Effects: Impacts of Alternative 5 associated with Seismic Safety,
Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation,
WildlifeNegetation~ Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources, would be
incrementally greater than those associated with the currently proposed project. This
Alternative would increase daily vehicular trips by 53.6% as compared to the proposed
project. The 53.6% increase in traffic would significantly increase on- and off-site
noise generation, however, the replacement of residential units with office/commercial
uses proposed by this Alternative adjacent to North General Kearny and Margarita
Roads would expose fewer residents to noise levels exceeding 65 CNEL. As with other
Alternatives, most of the projected noise impacts in the area are due to other
development projects in the area. Vehicular emissions relative to air quality would
be increased. These emissions are considered a significant impact by the SCAQMD.
Alternative 5 would increase the impacts associated with water and sewer services,
energy consumption and solid waste generation. Impacts to police and fire protection
would be greater than with the proposed project. Impacts to school facilities would
increase as a result of the increase in dwelling units proposed by this Alternative.
Alternative 5 would be required to provide 6.12 acres to satisfy the Quirnby Act
requirement for park acreage. The 10.8 acres of park use proposed by this Alternative
adequately meets this requirement.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 5, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 5 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not
selected because several of the environmental impacts wffi be increased, including
impacts associated with traffic, noise, air quality, water, sewer, solid waste generation
and other public services impacts. No significant environmental impacts associated
with the proposed project are reduced with this Alternative.
Alternative 6 - Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative
Descrintion of Alternative: Alternative 6 eliminates 10.4 acres of Office/Commercial
use and replaces it with medium density residential use. However, the overall
dwelling unit count for this Alternative totals 651, an increase of 343 dwelling units
as compared to the project proposal.
24
Comnarison of Effects: The impacts associated with Alternative 6 would be increased
as compared to the proposed project in the following areas: Seismic Safety, Slopes and
Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation, Wfidlife/
Vegetation, Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. The daily vehicular
trips associated with this Alternative are anticipated to increase by approximately
6.8% as compared to the proposed project. As the traffic would be increased by 6.8%
with this Alternative, the on- and off-site noise associated with traffic generation will,
thereby, be increased. Cumulative noise impacts are due to other development
projects in the ares, Additionally, the 6.8% increase in traffic will increase the
impacts to air quality associated with vehicular emissions. SCAQMD considers the
air quality impacts associated with this Alternative to be signffir~nt.
Impacts associated with water and sewer service demand, solid waste, fire and police
protection, schools, electricity and natural gas services are also incrementally
increased as compared to the proposed project. This Alternative requires provision
of 8.4 acres of parks; the 10.8 acre park associated with this Alternative satisfies this
requirement.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 6, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Section 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 6 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. Several of the
environmental impacts are increased as compared to the proposed project. In
addition, the number of employment opportunities associated with this Alternative is
decreased as compared to the proposed project due to the reduction of on-site
commercial/office uses.
Alternative 7- Alternative Sites
Descrintion of Alternative: Development of the proposed project in areas located
north and east of the proposed project was given consideration prior to selection of the
current project site. A candidate site within the applicant's ownership which would
physically accommodate the proposed project is the Paloma del Sol (Vail Meadows
Specific Plan).
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 7, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, wffi substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
25
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of 0verrirlin~ Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 7 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not
selected as development in the areas considered was determined infeasible due to the
fact that the higher density residential uses associated with the proposed project
would be less compatible with surrounalng land uses at the Paloma del Sol alternate
site. In addition, the proposed project site's current location provides afforttnhle
housing opportnnities for employees of the proposed adjacent projects including the
Industrial Park within Winchester Hills and Regions! Commercial uses within the
Temecula Regional Center. None of the alternate sites can provide this type of
contiguous access to future employment opportunities. In so doing, automobile trips
destined for places of employment are reduced in length which reduces air quality,
noise and traffic impacts. In addition, the proposed project at its proposed location
provides a 'q~uffer" or "infffi" development between proposed high intensity commercial
uses to the west and existing residential uses to the east.
26
SECTION 6
FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 21081.6 of th~ Public Resources Cede requires that when a public
agency is making the findingS required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)
(1), codffied as Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Cede, the public agency shall
adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the proposed project
which it has adopted or made a condition of approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
The City of Temecula hereby finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program,
which is attached as Appendix A to these FindingS, meets the requirements of Section
21081.6 of the Public Resources Cede by providing for the implementation and
monitoring of project conditions intended to mitigate potential environmental effects.
27
SECTION 7
SECTION 15091 AND 15092 FINDINGS
Based on the foregoing hndings and the information contained in the record,
the City of Temecula has made one or more of the following findings with respect to
the significant effects of the proposed project:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid many of the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the FEIR.
Some changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such
other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make feasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Based on the foregoing fmdings and the information contained in the record,
and as conditioned by the foregoing findings:
All significant effects on the environment due to the proposed project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible (see
Sections 2 and 3).
Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable are acceptable due to the overriding concorns set forth in
the foregoing Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section 1).
28
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Z:B 3SVd ~91']6G Z.96~:Pt~689 ;Z:T :fit l~GG'g/E:6/g6
JZ ;died -o ,j'fOfY/(;Og9# IoJ:l -- IIm£l.:ki ~66L '£ ai,~r Ailp|jd}
Z.99E:l,I>~689 8T :66 I~iGT/g8/98
Is aRed -- ,Z~)[~SOF), illojt ,. lieZI,:O L ~L 'E aunt xePNaI
ZggE:tq'c~g89 g'[:6(~
1~, eBed -- ~.Z90£*I~,SOg9, ioJ~l -- ~ueZl=OI. '966L '£ ~unl' Xep~j.=lI
;~ tied -- ,ZgO£f/*/;O99r leojj .. sd,/O:,/ z~6L 'Z ~r AePsJnqJ.r
abed -- d.~O¢~SOF~, I~J:l -- illld~:~ ~1, 'Z eunr ,~epsjnq.L]
6
IS ;ned -- ,Z'~O£ttS09t, eoj:l ,- ed.,/O:,~ "/661 'Z kin/, Aepsjnq,LI
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM PHASING PLAN
R:~STAFFRPT~ISp. I~C3 6/3/94 kJb 36
DRAFT
ADDENDUM EIR
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
RECEIVED
dAN 0 8 1993
CITY OF TEMECULA
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
EIR NO. 348
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
(714) 694-6400
Prepared By:
Douglas Wood & Associates
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan
Findings of the traffic analysis indicate that, at projected build-out of the three Kemper/Be, dford
projects substantial roadway improvements will be needed in the study area. It is important to
recognize that principal roadway improvements which comprise the planned City of Temecula
Circulation Element will be needed in the future whether or not the proposed projects are
implemented. Although these n~w and improved roadway fac'fiities would be serving the immediate
access needs of these proposed projects and other numerous planned development projects within
the study area, most of the improvements would also play an important role in serving the general
circulation needs of the Temecula commercial core area which straddles the 1-15 corridor. Some of
the improvements (e.g. Winchester Road - S.R, 79 widening and 1-15/Winchester Road interchange
reconstruction) would even serve future regional circulation needs.
The intent of the "conceptual circulation system phasing plan' developed in this study is to present
a logical implementation sequence for the construction of needed area-wide roadway improvements
which also considers the proposed phasing plan for the proposed Kemper/Bedford projects. It should
be noted that project build-out (assumed Year 2000) roadway needs have essentially been based on
full development (build-out) of all land uses within the immediate study area.
The market driven implementation rate of major development projects in the area will have very
strong influence on the timing of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development
projects are implemented, they will require access. Many of the phased roadway improvements
suggested in this plan are intended to provide for those local acce. ss needs and at the same time work
towards completing the ultimate area-wide circulation neworE In some cases, the phased
improvement is over-designed for the anticipated local development access needs but considers
ultimate needs and the desire to minimize future construction impacts related to phased widenings
(e.g., ~nitially building two lanes and the widening to four lanes at the later date). The assessment
of financing/implementation responsibilities for area-wide roadway improvements should consider that
the key elements of the plarined circulation system (including the Overland overpass, Data Street
overpass, and Winchester Interchange improvements) will be needed even ff proposed
Kempcr/Bedford development projects are not implemented.
Since it is more difficult to predict the rate and pattern of long-term (5 to 10 years) d~velopment
than short-term (1 to 5 years) development, it should be recognized that the actual roadway needs
for implementation periods beyond 5 years could vary significantly from the conceptual plan
presented in this study. It is also important to consider that many of t. he roadway improvements
identified would involve a multi-jurisdiction/agency review and coordination process which could
impact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein.
Anticipated Project Development Phasing - Project phasing assumed in this analysis is based on the
Project Phasing Plan presented in the individual Specific Plan documents. Sue to changing market
strategies, these phasing plans have been developed as a 'guideline' only for City review and
monitoring. Future market demand.~ may dictate varying approaches to phasing which could alter the
currently expected rate and/or sequence of project implementation. Project Phasing Plan assumptions
are iIlustrate, d in Figures 4, 11, and 18 for the Temecula Regional center, Winchester Hills, and
Camps Verdes projects respectively. A more detailed breakdown of project phasing assumptions
including anticipated development status and corresponding trip generation (both incremental and
cumulative) by six analysis time periods is presented for each Kernper/Bedford project in Tables 1
through 3.
Anticipated Background Development - In order to analyze roadway system implementation phasing
needs, it was necessary to make general assumptions regarding the rate and location of other area
development. For the purposes of this assessment it was assumed that other area development would
build-out at a constant rate over the next eight years and in a manner which would evenly distribute
the new development throughout the study area.
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing - Results of the circulation system phasing assessment are
presented in Figures 5 through 10 (Teme~'ula Regional Center), Figures 12 through 17 (Winchester
Hills), and Figures 19 through 24 (Campos Verdes). It should be noted that the Conceptual
Circulation System Phasing Plan is identical for each of the three projects. The individual phasing
plans differ only in terms of the specific project development status and the corresponding cumulative
project trip generation given for each implementation period.
Our approach in preparing the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan included planning level
assessments which focused on the immediate access needs of each project as well as capacity of key
congestion '"bottle necks' such as the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection and Winchester
Road/I-15 interchange. The proposed roadway impt:ovement implementation sequence has been
formulated to provide incremental stages of relief to these congestion prone areas. Additionally,
Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities District 88-12 have been considered in the
development of the Phasing Plan.
It is important to recognize that the Conceptual Circulation systems Phasing Plan presented herein
does not imply that the indMdual Kernper/Bedford projects would be respons~le for implementing
the roadway improvement needs identified in the Conceptual Phasing Plan. At the same time, it also
needs to be recognized that the rate at which projects in the study area are permitted to develop
should be correlated to the circulation systems' ability to adequately adu3mmodate the traffic which
these projects will generate.
As pan of our roadway phasing assessment, we have identified a number of improvements which are
currently anticipated to be critical (either directly or indirectly) to the development of the individual
Kernper/Bedford projects. This does not suggest that the identified improvement,' but rather the
timely implementation of the identified improvement would influence the status of traffic congestion
in the area. The resulting congestion levels could influence the City's ability to issue building permits.
Temecula Regional Center (Refer to Figure 5 through 10)
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester
Road.
Ynez Road widening from project boundary south to Rancho California Road.
Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murfieta Hot Springs Road.
New signal installations on Winchester Road to Margarita Road, Nicolas Road, and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Projected 1994 to 1995 Implementation Period:
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Wi.nchester Road.
New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Winchester Road at Temecula Regional Center access
roads.
On-site circulation system improvements/access connections.
Projected 1995 to 1996 Implementation Period Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements.
Two-lane interim Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue extension to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Projected 1996 to 1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening.
New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and Sate Street.
new signal installation on Margarita Road at Date Street.
Two-lane extension of General Kearney Road easterly to Nicolas Road.
· Projected 1998 to 1999 Implementation Period:
Date Street overpass improvements.
Projected 1999 to 2000 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road widening between 1-15 and Ynez Road.
Jackson Avenue widening from the Temecula City limit to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Winchester Hills [Refer to Hgures 12 through 17)
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road.
' Two;lane interim improvement of Margafita Road from Solann Way to Winchester
Road.
Four-lane extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment
On-site loop street and connector street improvements ~s depicted in Figure 12.
Widening of Jefferson Avenue from Date Street to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Ynez Road widening from Overland DHve alignment to Rancho California Road.
New signal installation on Winchester Road at Marga~ta and Murrieta Hot Springs
Road intersections.
Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Date Street west of Ynez Road.
Four-lane improvement of Date Street from Margafita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Widening of Margafita Road from Solaria Way to Winchester Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period:
Six-lane and two-lane interim improvement on Date Street as depicted n Figure N.
Four-lane on-site and two-lane interim off-site improvement of Ynez Road/Jackson
Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
On-site loop street and connector street improvements as illustrated in Hgure 14.
Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margafita Road, Ynez Road/Project Connector
Street, and Date Street/Ynez Road intersections.
New signal installations at Date Street/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita
Road/Project Connector Street intersections.
Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements.
Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road interchange Overpass widening.
Date Street widening from Lincoln to Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Date Street at Ynez Road, Lincoln and Margarita Road
intersections.
New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and the Project
Connector Street intersections.
Projected 1998-1999 Implementation Period:
Construction of the Date Street overpass and installation of new signals on Date
Street at Madison Avenue and the Business Park ac,'e~ street.
New signal installation at Jackson Avenue/North Busines-s Park acce,~ street,
· Projected 1999-2000 Implementation Period:
Widening of Jackson Avenue between the City limit and Murrieta Hot Springs Road,
Campos Verdes
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester
Road.
Four-lane improvement of General kearuey Road from the new Margarita Road
alignment to the easterly project limits.
Solaria Way widening between Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
Ynez Road widening from the Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road,
Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
New signal installations on Margarita Road at Winchester Road and Solana Way.
Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period:
Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road,
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Margarita.
New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and General Kearuey Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange~ ramp improvements.
New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and Campos Verdes access
road.
Projecteel 1996-1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening.
Two-lane G~neral Kearney Road extension from easterly project limits to Nicolas
Road.
Projected 1998-2000 Implementation Period:
(No system improvements as.sessed to be critical to the development of Campos
Verdes.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
The formulation of recommended mitigation m~asures for the three Kemper/Batford urban core
projects has been based on a number factors including:
1. Endings of the original traffic impact studies prepared for the projects;
2. Findings of the project-related traffic utilization analysis of planned area roadway system
capacity; and
3. Findings of the conceptual circulation system phasing analysis,
Assessments of area roadway capacity utilization reveal that cumulative project traffic impacts are
wide-spread but vary significantly in terms of magnitude. Furthermore this analysis also reveals that
project trips are comprised of a combination of new trips and diverted trips. New trips consist of
those project trips which would clearly be added to roadway network such as those vehicle trips which
would have one end of the trip within the project and one end outside of the study area. Diverted
trips describe those project-related trips on area roadways which result from the interaction of land
uses within the projects and other local area land uses (both existing and planned). With diverted
trips, the associated traffic impacts can not be defined as the respons~ility of the projects under study
since the opposite end of these trips, in effect, is being generated by other area land uses. At best
the impacts of these trips could b~ assessed as the responsibility of the land use which is closest to
the location where the impact occurs. It would not be equitable for the Kernper/Bedford projects
to assume full respons~ility for the impact of these diverted trips since elimination of the
Kemp~r/Bedford projects would not eliminate the land uses which are generating the opposite ends
of these trips. Without the Kernper/Bedford projects these trips would essentially be redistn'buted
to interact with other local or regional development.
In terns of the dispersion of project related traffic impacts (e.g. roadway capacity utilization), it is
not practical to assess widespread roadway implementation cost responsibilities when 'fair share'
assessments represent very small portions of the cost to implement indMdual roadway improvements.
The approach taken in this asse.~sment is one which recognizes the cumulative impacts over a
widespread area and concentrates an equivalent mitigation effort in a strategic and more effective
manner.
Recommended mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kernper/Bedford
projects are summarized below:.
.1.
50 percent implementation rnspons~i/jty for Jackson Avenue from the Temecula/Murrieta
City limits to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Winchester Hills is assessed 90 percent of the mitigation.
· Temecula Regional Center is assess 10 percent of the Mitigation.
2. 16.6 percent or 1/6th implementation respons~ility for the Date Street overpass.
· Winchester Hills is assessed 100 percent of the mitigation.
28 percent implementation responsibility for the Winchester Road interchange overpass
widening and currently planned ramp widenings.
· Winchester Hills is assessed 17 percent of the mitigation.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed 80 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed 3 percent of the mitigation.
5 percent implementation respons~ility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement
(Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road).
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed 60 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed 40 percent of the mitigation.
15 percent implementation respons~ility for the Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive
to Rancho California Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is messed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16.6 percent implementation respons~ility for the Winchester Road widening from Margafita
Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is as,se,~ed with 90 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
25 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Solann Way to Winchester Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 65 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
· Campas Verdes is asscase, d with 20 percent of the mitigation.
15 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 35 percent of the mitigation..
· Winchester Hilis is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
9. 25 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane Ynez Road improvement
from its present terminus at Equity Drive to the Temecula/Murrieta City limits.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation.
10. 16.6 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the six-lane Date Street improvement
from the 1-15 overpass structure to Margarita Road.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation.
11. 13 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane Date Street improvement
from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Winchester Hilis is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation.
12. 25 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane improvement of Overland
Drive from Ynez Road to Margarita Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
Campes Verdes is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
13. 30 percent of the implementation responsibility for four-lane improvements respons~ility for
four-lane improvement of Cn:neral Kearney Road from Margarita Road to the easterly
Campos Verdes proiect boundary.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
14. 15 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane improvement of General
Kearney Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 85 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16
15. 10 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Solana Way 'from Ynez
Road to Margarita Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hi]is is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.
16. 5 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road
from Date Street to Canyon Drive.
· Temecula Regional Center is a.ssessext with 30 percent of the mitigation
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
17. Signal system implementation respous~ilities would be as indication below.
a) ~percentrespousibHityf~r~n~sitesignalswithi~theWinchusterHi~spr~je~tinc~uding:
· Date Street signals at Business Park Am Street, Ynez Road, Lincoln, and
Margarita Road;
· Ynez Road signals at Business Park Access Street, and Loop Road Connector Street
(near Equity Drive); and
· Margarita Road signal at southerly Loop Road Connector Street.
h)
100 percent responsibility for Temecula Regional Center project perimeter access signals
including:
· Winchester Road signal at westerly Regional Center Access Road;
· Overland Drive signal at Regional Center Access Road; and
· Existing regional modification costs at Palm Plaza Access and Costco Center
c) 100 percent responsibility for Campos Verdes Access signals on Margarita Road at
General Kearney Road and Campos Vetdes Access StreeL
d)
50 percent responsibility for signals located at the following intersections:
· Margarita Road/Winchester Road;
· Margarita Road/Overland Drive; and
Ynez Road/Overland Drive.
25 percent responsibility for the signal installations at:
· Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and
· Margarita Road/Solana Way.
It is important to note that the implementation responsibilities detailed herein do not take into
account Kempcr/Bedfords contn'butions toward Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities
District 88-12 which together address many of the improvements included in the refined
recommended mitigation measures. Kernper/Bedford should be given credit where appropriate for
assessments involving the project properties and roadway improvements included in the 161 and 88-12
districts. Credits should also be considered for right-of-way dedications involving the recommended
street improvements.
In addition to the above listed mitigation measures, the individual Kernper/Bedford projects would
be respons~le for implementing all on-site project street improvements which have not already been
discussed. Individual project mitigation would also include preparation of Transportation Demand
Management CI'DM) Programs which meet the requirements of the City's 'soon to be adopted' TDM
ordinance. Please not that the Winchester Hills project, as part of its' mitigation program, has
reserved an easement along the 1-15 property frontage for a potential future collector-distn'butor
road/'mterchange system involving Date Street.
0
n,'
U
'*" E
>',E
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER, APRIL 18, 1994
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Patncia B, Novomey, Ed,D
RECEIVED
APR 2 1 199z
Ans'd ..........
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Ros~e Vanderhaak
April 18, 1994 (supplements February 28, 1994 and March 8, 1994 comments)
Steve Jiannino
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Campos Verdes Specific Plan Conditions
Dear Mr, Jiannino:
The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the proposed Specific
Plan as presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994:
· Elementary School Site
We understand that the developer has included an 11.1 acre school site in an Alternative Land Use Plan. The District
is in favor of this site, which could become a part of the mitigation agreement. (ref 3/7/94 dwg.)
Although the site will need formal State Department of Education (SDE) approvals, many of the SDE areas of concern
(airport proximity, flood plain, dam inundation) are not issues with the proposed s~te.
The District will require good pedestrian, bus and parent vehicle access to this site.
· School Facilities Mitigation Agreement
The number of new dwelling units is being determined for this development. Through new housing student generation
data, we have determined the following generation rates in the Temecula Valley Unified School District:
# of students per dwelling unit
Elementary School: .39
Middle School: .24
High School: .2j
Total .88
The number of new students is determined by multiplying rhe new dwuliing UniTs by th~se factors, which for a 306-unit
single*family development would be 119 elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students.
Prior to Specific Plan approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School
District to ensure adequate facilities for these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General
Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program.
Section V D.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School
District information as indicated in the attachments.
If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340.
Director of Facilities Development
CC:
Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent
John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst
Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc.
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Ternecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
April 18, 1994
Campos Vetdes Specific Plan Conditions
Section V D.5
(TVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/18/94)
SCHOOLS
Existino Conditions
The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The
District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5) schools, two middle (grades 6-8) schools and two high (grades 9-12) schools.
The attached Tj~ble, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent
building capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are
operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommodate the
overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed.
b. Proiect Impacts/General Plan Relationship
The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation.
· Attached Dwellino Units:
Grades K-E - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit
Detached Dwellino Units:
Grades K-5 * 0.39; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.25 students per unit
The proposed 306 single-family residential units located in Campos Verdes will generate approximately 269 students (119
elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned aboveJ. Because a single
elementary site, and no middle or high school site is proposed within the project boundaries, the estimated 119 elementary students
could be accommodated on-site, but the middle and high school students would require accommodation off-site. As previously
mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building capacity. The additional students generated by
th~s proleer will place an ~ncreased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The Campos Verdes project lies within the boundaries of the newly ihcorporated City of Temecula. The City General Plan adopted
~rl October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts.
c. Genera/Plan Implementation Program
In accordance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact
of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District,
pnor to Specific Plan approvals. The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following financing mechanisms:
1. Payment of school fees
2. Dedication of land and/or facilities
3. Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District
4. Levying of a special tax
5. Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District
d. Level of Significance After Mitigation
Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an
insignificant level.
F-- I= >
CAMPOS VERDES
<RD~ ~ Z7*t Ynez RM~ lua ;{3;. Te,~a~ ~;A ~259~
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN
P.A. 2
~,OMMERCJAL/
CFFiCEJ
DETENTION
1O.4AC
IOENSITY
P.A, 6
2.6 AC
, MEDIUM
MEADOWVIEW
" CAMPOS VERDES
/ ',
P.A. 6
· MEDIUM
P.A 4
MULTI-FAMILY
I?.4 AC
348 DU
P.A, 3
SCHOOL'
11.1 AC
\
ATTACHMENT NO. 13
MEADOWVIEW L,- s, ER OF SUPPORT
Meadowview Community Association
May 18, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92591
Attention: Chairman Steven Ford and
Planning Commission
RECEIVED
HAY I 8 1994
SubjeCt: Campos Verdes Specific Plan
The Meadowview Homeowners Association has no opposition to the
proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan as we understand the current
proposal. We believe the proposed 1/2 acre lots adjacent to
Meadowview homes separated by a 40 foot buffer zone will provide
adequate inter project transition. The proposed traffic pattern
will reduce adverse impacts at our equestrian facility.
The Meadowview Homeowners Association wishes to acknowledge
Kemper's coordination with the Board of Directors and individual
homeowners. Barry Burnell was very helpful in minimizing traffic
impacts on the HOA by eliminating a street entrance across from
our equestrian facilities. Dennis Chiniaeff gave ge:'~erc.usly of
his time to meet with individual homeowners along the common are~
boundary to hear their concerns and devise a suitable mitigation
plan agreeable to both parties.
Kat~and/,~pre~ssi~dent
Board of Directors
Meadowview Homeowners Association
KH/qg
cc:'. Gary Thornhill,
City Council
Planning
Commission
P.O. Box 788 · Temecula, California 92593 · (909) 676-4429