HomeMy WebLinkAbout071894 PC AgendaCALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
July l& 1994, 6:00 PM
Raneho California Water District's Board Room
42135 Winchester Rood
Temeeula, CA 92390
Chairman Ford
Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer and Ford
A total 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 Commissioners about an item n0l listed on the Agenda, a pink *Request to Speak" form should be
filled out and ~ed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
Approval of minutes from the May 7,3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
Approval of minutes from the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
3. Director's Hearing Update
Approve Approximately Twenty Eight (28) Foot High Freestanding Freeway Offanted for
Wendy's.
Adopt A Resolution Determining That Rancho California Water District's 94-95 Capitol
Construction Projects Are Consistent With The Adopted City General Plan
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 5691
Los Ranchitos Estates
North side of Highway 79 South, approximately 660 feet west of the
intersection of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road.
Change of zone request of five (5) parcels from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential
Agricultural 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size) to C-O (Commercial Office).
Proposed Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Approval
R:XWIMBERVG~PLANCOMM~AGENDA$\7-18-94 7114/94 vow 1
e
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25063/Change of Zone 5598
David Mulvany
South side of Nicholas Road, approximately 2000 feat east of Calle
Medusa
Subdivide a 20 acre parcel into 68 residential units and change the zone
classification from R-R 2% (Rural Residential 2~h acre minimum lot
size) to R-I (One Family Dwelling).
Exempt from CEQA per Section 15270
Craig Ruiz
Continue to September 19, 1994
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA94-00,13, Minor Conditional Use Permit
Klassic Shotz Billiards
41915 Motor Car Parkway
To locate a billiard parlor and video arcade in an existing building in a
commercial shopping center
Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301
Craig Ruiz
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
EnvironmentalAction:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Specific Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No. $$89
Kemper Real Estate
South of Winchester Road between 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 from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
(Heavy Agricultural 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan).
Environmental Impact Report --
Debbie Ubnoske
Recommend Approval
10. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Specific Plan No. 1, Change of Zone No. S617 and Environmental
Impact 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 13.7 acres of
Offiee/Commcrcial/Church/Datention, 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
Ag~icuitoral, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan).
Environmental Impact Report
Debbie Ubnoske
Recommend Approval
Next meeting: August 1, 1994, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water Distriat's Board Room, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
R:%WIMBERVG\R,ANCOMM~AGENDAS\7-18-94 7/14/94 vgw 2
ITEM #2
MINUTES FOR MAY :23, 1994
R:%WIMBERVG~Pt,N~ICOMM~AGENDAS~7-18-94 7/14/94 vgw 3
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 23, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, May 23, 1994, 6:05 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Ford.
PRESENT: 3
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Mary Jo
Shelton-Dutcher and RecordlOg Secretary Gall Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADoroval of Aaende
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Salyer to
approve the agenda as mailed.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Minul;q~
2.1
3 COMMISSIONERS: Hoaglend, Salyer, Ford
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
Minutes of April 25, 1994.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Salyer
to approve the minutes of April 25, 1994.
Chairman Ford commented that on page 4, the vote should be corrected to
read Ayes - 5.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS:
Hoegland, Salyer, Ford
PCMIN05/23/94 I O6108194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOES:
ABSENT:
2.2
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
Minutes of May 2, 1994.
MAY 23, 1994
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Salyer
to approve the minutes of May 2, 1994.
Chairman Ford corrected Page 2 to reflect the motion failed. He also
recommended the following be added to Page 8, Planning Commission
Discussion," ..... which will be changed to comply with the Old Town
standards at the time funds are available under the Capital Improvement
Program funding of Public Works".
Director's Hearino Uodate
None
Plannine Commission Meetine Location Chanae from Vail Elementary School, to
Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road
Director Thornhill advised the Commission the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission
will be held at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester
Road, Temecula, California and monthly thereafter.
Commissioners Blair and Fahey arrived at 6:10 P.M.
Resolutions for ADDrovino Plannine APplication NO. 94-0035 - one (40) foot hieh
freeway oriented sien and one (12) twelve foot high monument sion for the Ynez
Car Care Center
Director Thornhill said staff was confused by the Commission's previous direction
on this item.
Commissioner Hoagland said his intention was that the 40 foot sign be rejected.
Commissioner Blair said she also understood this was the direction.
Director Thornhill advised the Commission the applicant is entitled to a freeway
oriented sign and staff could recommend the maximum allowable height.
Commissioner Fahey said the 40 foot high sign did not acheive any additional
visibility, yet a much lower sign achieved visibility from the other direction.
PCMINO5/23194 2 O6108/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1994
Director Thornhill asked the Commission if there was a height they would like staff
to consider.
Commissioner Blair said the lowest possible to achieve visibility. Commissioner
Blair said she was also concerned with the number of names allowed on the
monument sign along Ynez Road.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to
adopt Resolution No. 94-12 approving Planning Appl!cation 94-0035 for a 12' high
monument sign on Ynez Road based on the findings contained in the staff report.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Hoegland, Salyer, Ford
None
None
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to adopt
Resolution No. 94-13 approving Planning Application 94-0035 and direct staff to
approve a freeway oriented sign, at a height which is appropriate with the balloon
test results, to be located at the rear portion of the Ynez Car Care Center.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Salyer
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Ford
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairman Ford stated he voted in opposition because he feels freeway signage is
not necessary.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
6. PA94-0028, Revised Plot Plan
Proposal to expand showroom area and add two additional service bays.
the Norm Reeves Acura Dealership, 26799 Ynez Road, Temecula.
Located at
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Planner Ruiz advised
Condition 9 will be amended to read "Colors and materials used shall conform
substantially with those existing on site and as shown on Exhibit C".
PCMIN05/23/94 3 06/08194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1994
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. There being no requests to
speak the public hearing was closed at 6:23 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the
public hearing at 6:24 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94-14 approving PA94-0028,
P,~vised Plot Plan, and Approve Planning Application No. PA94-0028 revised Plot
~ . ~, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to
tr~e Conditions of Approval.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
7. Sian Ordinance Reaulatino Temporary Sians
Presented by Planner John Meyer.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:50 P.M.
Bruce Sparks, owner of Whippersnapper Furniture, 27645 Jefferson #110,
Temecula, asked the Commission to consider increasing the number of banners, in
the provision for uniform banners, to two per business, for those businesses which
may have two distinctive entrances. Mr. Sparks said he feels the banner size being
proposed is too small and uneffective. Mr. Sparks stated he has not heard anyone
from the public expressing their concerns regarding the banners.
Jeannie Kearns, owner of Gently Used Furniture, expressed her opposition to the
proposed ordinance.
Director Thornhill said temporary signs are normally used for Grand Openings and
special events, however, with the present economic conditions, people are putting
up banners and leaving them up. The ordinance as proposed, is as liberal as staff
could make it.
Commissioner Hoagland said he feels the City Council has a clearer idea of what
they would like to see in the ordinance.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close
the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. and send this item forward to the City Council with
no recommendation from the Planning Commission.
PCMIN05/23194 4 06108194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The motion failed to carry with the following vote:
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland
NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Salyer, Ford
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
MAY 23, 1994
Commissioner Blair said she believes there is a proliferation of signs in the City and
the Commission has the right to make those decisions.
Commissioner Salyer said he feels this is a public issue. Commissioner Salyer said
he believes the public feels there is a proliferation of temporary signs.
Commissioner Salyer said he hears that the business community wants almost any
sign as long as it is neat and as many as necessary to assist the business, but he
hasn't heard from the community and would like to know what they want to see.
Commissioner Fahey said she disagrees with the recommendation to take no action,
She said she believes the Commission should address what is requested of them
and that the Commission may need to work on this more.
Chairman Ford said he feels the Commission should send this item back to staff and
look at the square footage as it relates to permanent signs.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Chairman Ford to continue this
item and direct staff to Ioo1< at a comparison of the temporary signs to the
permanent sign ordinance and design some time frames for new businesses who
could have business identification temporary signs that may be larger than what is
being I~roposed and a time limit such as six months.
Commissioner Hoagland said he feels staff time is being squandered on efforts that
have gone over and over dealing with temporary signs. He said he believes asking
staff to spend anymore time on this without specific direction from the Council, is a
waste of time.
The motion failed to carry as follows:
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Salyer
NOES:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
It was moved by Commissioner Salyer, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
send back to the City Council the existing Temporary Sign Ordinance without
revisions, which the Commission feels is adequate for the public's interest.
PCMIN05/23194 5 06108194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Salyer
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
MAY 23, 1994
Commissioner Fahey stated she does not believe the Commission has met the
Council's direction or expectations by sending back the same proposal.
Chairman Ford concurred.
Chairman Ford declared a recess at 7:22 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 7:29 P.M.
8. Specific Plan No. 263 and Chanqe of Zone No. 5589
Proposal for 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 from R-R (Rural
Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP
(Specific Plan). Located south of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and
Margarita Road.
Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:48 P.M.
Commissioner Hoagland excused himself from the meeting at 8:00 P.M.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Vice I~resident of Kernper Development Company, 27555 Ynez
Road, provided an overview of the project. Mr. Chiniaeff said he is not opposed to
applying the infrastructure improvements to phased portions of the project. Mr.
Chiniaeff said the developer does not intend to build a downtown Santa Monica.
Commissioner Fahey asked how the applicant proposes to meet the village center
concept. She said she is not as concerned with the regional concept as she is the
village concept. Commissioner Fahey said she feels the Winchester overpass and
the Margarita/Solano Way improvements should be complete prior to completion of
this project.
Brock Kilbourne, 29821 Via Olvera, Temecula, said he feels Specific Plan 263 and
Specific Plan 1 should be considered together and also need to be considered in
relationship to other developments. He said it is important to consider long term
impacts. Mr. Kilbourne said he feel there is a traffic problem which he feels should
PCMIN05/23/94 6 06/08194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 23, 1994
be addressed. He said he feels it is important to consider the traffic problems
before, rather than after, the project is completed. He said he feels the developer
should be environmentally considerate.
Commissioner Fahey said she doesn't believe the proposal fits within the General
Plan. She said if the Village Center concept is not appropriate, staff and the
Commission needs a clearer outline of what does fit the project. Commissioner
Fahey said she feels more work needs to be done on the phasing of the roads.
Commissioner Blair said she agrees with Commissioner Fahey's comments. She
asked Planning Director Thornhill to explain the applicant's reluctance to make
Planning Area One a Regional Center.
Director Thornhill said there was a difference of opinion over what Planning Area
One should be. The City has recognized the importance of Planning Areas 2 and 3
and Staff feels it is very important to reserve a small area that is central to this site,
that would do more than the typical large retail user.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue
this Item to the meeting of June 6, 1994.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fehey, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
Specific Plan No. 1. Chanae of Zone No. 5617 and Environmental Impact RepOrt
No. 348
Specific Plan proposing 206 Single-Family Residential units, 644 Multi-Family
Residential Units, 13.5 acres of Commercial, approximately 5 acres of office, and
18.5 acres of Park and Retention 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). South of Winchester Road and east of
Margarita Road.
Commissioner Fahey stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:55 P.M.
PCMIN05/23/94 7 061081~4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 23, 1994
Dave Gallaher, representing the Temecula Unified School District, 31350 Rancho
Vista Road, Temecula, California, advised the Commission a letter was sent from
the school district identifying the impacts the project will have on the school
district. Mr. Gallaher said the school district is asking that a mitigation agreement
be entered into by the developer and the school district. He stated the agreement
needs to be in place prior to approval of the Specific Plan.
Brock Kilbourne stated his concerns as follows: traffic, phasing of the development,
protecting and incorporating the natural environment (i.e., rolling hills, natural
stream beds) into the project. Mr. Kilbourne expressed his support of the proposal.
John Koran, 40645 La Colima Road, Temecula, expressed concern regarding the
proposed grading of the project. Mr. Koran said he believes the Meadowview
Homeowners Association will forward a letter supporting the project.
Chairman Ford said he would like to see at least one of the two streets, Starling and
Sanderling, Starling being more suitable, remain open to allow for access to the
school. Chairman Ford asked staff to review the language on Page 5 under TCSO.
He recommended adding the following language "...transfer to the City in fee.
Further, any easements that would preclude the City using the property would also
be eliminated". Chairman Ford said he is not satisfied with the language "overriding
consideration" regarding the dam inundation study.
Commissioner Salyer and Commissioner Blair agreed that access should be provided
within the two developments if required by Public Works.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Salyer to close the
public hearing and continue this item to the meeting of June 6, 1994, with the
modifications regarding opening the roads.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer, Ford
NOES' 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland
ABSTAIN: .1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Assistant City Attorney Mary Jo Shelton-Dutcher advised the Commission that
since there are only three members eligible to vote on this item, state law requires
an affirmative vote by a majority of the Commission, which means it will require an
affirmative vote by all three Commissioners.
PCMINOS/23/94 8 06108/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 1994
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Thornhill asked that the Commission make an effort to have a minimum of three
Commissioners in attendance at the June 6, 1994.
Director Thornhill invited each of the Commissioners to review the Zev Buffman proposal
for Old Town.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
None
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on
Monday, June 6, 1994, 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room,
42135Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Chairman Steve Ford
Secretary
PCMIN06/23/94 9 06/08/~4
M]NUTES FOR JUNE 6, 1994
R:XWIMBERVG%PLANCOMM%AGENDAS%?-18-94 7114/94 vgw 4
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, June 6, 1994, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman
Steve Ford.
PRESENT: 3
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
Blair, Fahey
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz and
Recording Secretary Gall Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT ':
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Ford stated the following agenda items are to be continued:
Item No. 4 Continue off calendar
Item No. 5 Continue to the meeting of July 18, 1994
Item No. 7 Continue off calendar and re-notice
Item No. 9 Continue to the meeting of July 18, 1994
Item No. 10 Continue to the meeting of July 18, 1994
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commission Salyer to approve
the agenda as revised.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:10 P.M.
Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
None
Blair, Fahey
PCMIN06/06/94 1 06114194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. PA94-0019, PLOT PLAN
Proposal to construct a 10,200 square foot restaurant on a vacant 1.9 acre parcel in
the General Commercial (C-P) zone. Located at the northwesterly corner of Rancho
California Road and Ynez Road.
Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Planner Ruiz advised that Page 9 of the
resolution, line two, will be revised to read "to construct a 10,200 square foot Black
Angus Restaurant", deleting the reference to expanding an automobile dealership.
Planner Ruiz said staff received a letter on this date from the Health Department
requiring the applicant submit their plans to the County Health Department. Staff has
added Condition No. 69 which reads, "The applicant shall comply with the
recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Environmental Health Transmittal
dated June 6, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
Commissioner Hoagland said that he feels the proposed water feature at the corner of
Rancho California Road and Ynez Road is not appropriate for the area considering the
past year's rainfall and the higher temperatures during the summer months.
Commissioner Salyer said he is concerned with the traffic patterns and traffic flow to
the project and this portion of the center.
Ray Casey explained there are no access points off Rancho California Road or Ynez
Road to this project. He said the problems in this area are a result of a traffic back-up
at Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. Mr. Casey said the situation should improve
once the improvements are completed to the Rancho California Road overpass.
Commissioner Salyer said he feels a large popular restaurant will add to the existing
congestion in the lane that services the gas station and the existing restaurant.
Ray Casey said the applicant has done their best with the situation, without making the
traffic problems worse on Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to the I-15 ramps.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M.
Phillip Gilbert of Form .Guild Architects, spoke representing the American Restaurant
Group, the operators of the Black Angus Restaurant. Mr. Gilbert said he was present
to accept the conditions of approval for American Restaurant Group, however, he
stated that the applicant is a leaseholder and has no authority to act upon Condition
No. 61.
Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz explained that a leaseholder applying for a permit is
the same as the underlying fee holder of the property. The leaseholder is required to
obtain the consent of the property owner.
PCMIN06/06/94 2 061~4194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 1994
Darice Rosner, representing K, emper Real Estate Management, asked for clarification
of Condition No. 22.
Craig Ruiz explained the applicant is being required to provide additional landscaping
to adequately screen mechanical ecluipment.
Parice Rosner asked that language be added to Condition No. 22 specifying the
screening of equipment.
Ms. Rosner asked for clarification of Condition No. 52. Ray Casey explained this
condition applies to the project only. Ms. Rosner asked staff to amend the condition
to reflect it is project specific. Ms. Rosner asked staff to amend Condition No. 61
adding language that will allow for future reimbursement from CSD 88-12 regarding the
purchase of right-of- ways. Ms. Rosner said the applicant feels the City ordinance
which prohibited tenant signs, was originally developed to address billboards and is not
applicable to tenant signage within a shopping center.
Commissioner Salyer said he does not agree with the traffic study. He said he feels
the project will create a significant increase in traffic on Ynez Road.
Commissioner Blair expressed a concern that there may not be adequate parking at the
proposed restaurant.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill said he feels the center has more than enough
capacity, the issue may be that someone has to walk a greater distance at the peak
dinner period.
Engineer Casey said the traffic study suggests the timing be increased to the signal for
left turns into the Tower Plaza. He said the study shows a Level of Service "C" across
the board for the location.
Commissioner Hoagland said he feels this is a good project and a keystone element for
this shopping center. He said the traffic report was prepared by a reputable firm and
the signalization of the two intersections has helped to control the traffic flow.
Commissioner Hoagland said he does not disagree that reviewing the ability to make
a U-turn at the first signalized intersection north of Rancho California Road would be
a good idea.
Chairman Ford said he is concerned with the adequate screening of the trash enclosure
adjacent to Ynez Road; he likes the proposed water feature, and he feels the sign is not
necessary.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Chairman Ford to close the
public hearing at 6:40 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA94-0019, Plot and Adopt Resolution No. 94-15 approving PA94-
0019, Plot Plan, based on the analysis and findings and subject to the attached
PCMIN06/06/94 3 06/14/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE e, 1994
Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report, modifying the Resolution as
suggested by staff, adding Condition of Approval No. 69. and modifying Conditions of
Approval 22 and 52 as suggested by the applicant and agreed to by Staff.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
2 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Ford
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Commissioner Blair said she feels it is a good idea to get a traffic generator into the
shopping center, however, she feels that placing the restaurant in the middle of the
shopping center may generate more traffic to the merchants. Commissioner Blair s~id
it is already difficult to get to the portion of the shopping where the restaurant is
proposed.
Commissioner Salyer said he is concerned with the current traffic congestion. He said
many individuals have expressed to him their concern with the traffic problems in this
area.
Engineer Casey said the project has very little impact on the intersection.
Dennis Chiniaeff, representing Kemper, said if U-turns are prohibited and left turnes
limited northbound traffic on Ynez, to the entrance between the banks, then the traffic
movement is directed into the middle of the shopping center.
3. PA93-0067, Minor Public Use Permit
Proposal to allow a church in an existing building. Located at 27512 Enterprise Circle
West.
Craig Ruiz presented the staff report.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M.
Father Ed Renner, St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 27512 Enterprise Circle West, said
there are many other churches operating in the City, that are not being required to
provide parking levels such as those being required of St. Thomas Episcopal Church.
Commissioner Hoagland suggested Conditions be added to the CUP stating that should
the parking conditions become inadequate and create a problem, the permit could be
subject to revocation. Commissioner Hoagland asked if a license agreement wouldbe
applicable.
PCMIN06/06/94 4 08114194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE6,1994
Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz said the problem could be resolved by a real estate
attorney. He said a personal easement could be applied to this particular issue. Mr.
Diaz said a license agreement would also be applicable as long as it is recorded.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the
public hearing at 7:05 P.M. and to send this item back to the Planning Director, with
direction to approve this item based on ideas put forward by the Commission.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill said the item could be approved at this hearing with
direction that a condition be added, acceptable to the Planning Director and City
Attorney, including language with respect to violation of the condition.
Commissioner Hoagland withdrew his motion.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close the
public hearing at 7:05 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94-16 approving Planning
Application No. PA93-0067, directing the Planning Director and City Attorney to add
a condition requiring a parking agreement, including language with respect to violation
of the condition.
The motion was carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
4. Chanae of Zone No. 26
Proposal to change the existing zoning from Residential Agriculture, 20 acre minimum
parcel size (R-A-20)to Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-C) and Open Space (OS).
Located at the Southwesterly corner of Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commission Salyer to continue
this item off calendar..
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
PCMINO6/06/94 5 06114194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
5.
JUNE 6, 1994
Tentative Parcel MaD NO. 25063
Proposal to subdivide a 20 acre parcel into 68 residential units. Located at the south
side of Nicolas Road, approximately 2000 feet east of Calle Medusa.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commission Salyer to continue
this item to the meeting of July 18, 1994.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Hoaglando Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
PA94-0022 (Paloma eel Sol Amendment)
Proposal requesting Approval of Amendment #4 to Specific Plan No. 219, Paloma Del
Sol, to adjust the boundaries of Planning Areas 1,6 and 37 and to change the acreage
for major roads.
Associate Planner Saied Naaseh presented the staff report.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M.
Csaba Ko, Kemper Community Development Company, said he concurs with the staff
report and offered to answer any questions.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close the
public hearing at 7:20 P.M. and recommend Adoption of Resolution No. 94-17
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 Conditions of Approval.
The motion was carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PCMIN06/O6194 6 06/14194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
7.
JUNE 6,1994
Soecific Ran No. 228, Environmental Imoact Report o. 251 and Addendure, Chanae
of Zone No. 5481
Proposal to request approval of a Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report, (EIR),
Addendum to the EIR, and Change of Zone for a 557 acre planned residential
community containing 2,495 dwelling units, 20 acres of commercial development, 32
acres of park land, a junior high school and senior high school.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commission Salyer to continue
this item off calendar and re-notice the pdblic hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
Master Conditional Use Permit
Proposal to adopt a resolution amending Ordinance No. 348 to create provisions and
requirements for the Approval of a Master Conditional Use Permit Citywide.
Associate Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Hoagland said he is concerned with the broadness and definition of the
purpose of intent. He said the ordinance should be specific when referring to large
scale development (i.e. maximum square footage). Commissioner Hoagland said ha
could support the ordinance if it were focused more to be project specific.
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M.
Planning Director Gary Thornhill said staff could make the Ordinance specific to the
City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency joint public or private projects which is the
intent of the Ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz suggested language be added that include only the
MOU and Development Agreements where this process is specifically referenced,
therefore existing Development Agreements could not be amended.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close the
public hearing at 7:35 P.M. and Adopt Ordinance No. 94-18, adding the language
recommended by the Assistant City Attorney.
PCMIN06/06/94 7 06/14/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The motion was carried as follows:
10o
JUNE 6.1994
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
None
Fahey
Soecific Plan No. 2~3 and Chanae of Zone No. 5589
Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot Commercial Core, 810,000 square
feet of Office/Institutional and Mixed Use Residential with 298,000scluare feet of retail
with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from RoR (Rural
Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific
Plan). Located south of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commission Salyer to continue
this item to the meeting of July 18, 1994.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
Soecific Plan No. 1, Chanae of Zone No. 5617 and Environmental Impact Report No.
348
Specific Plan proposing 308 Single Family Residential Units, 12 acres of Commercial,
approximately 19.8 acres of Office/Commercial/Church, a 5.8 acre Detention 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). Located south of
Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commission Salyer to continue
this item to the meeting of July 18, 1994.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PCMINO6/06/94 8 06114194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 1994
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Planning Director Gary Thornhill reported the following:
Planning Director Gary Thornhill reported that following the meeting on the Johnson
Ranch project, he started investigating going beyond some of the boundaries of this
project, in terms of looking at open space connections, and he met with Brian Lowe of
the Riverside County Habitat Agency to discuss linked open space, connecting a
number of the approved and proposed specific plans in the area surrounding Johnson
Ranch. Director Thornhill said he was surprised to learn that no one has approached
the agency with respect to this issue. He said Mr. Lowe was very interested in
acquiring and giving fee credits for property in the specific plans. He advised there is
a potential for 700 to 900 acres to be set aside, and for developers to get very
substantial fee credits in terms of the K-Rat fees and that staff will begin to address
this issue
The Planning Commission will review the Capitol Improvement Program at the July
meeting.
Director Thornhill advised the American Planning Association (APA) will be sponsoring
an awards ceremony late in June. The APA will present section awards for planning
excellence.
The Department is setting up interviews to select consultants for the Nicolas Valley
Special Study area and Old Town Streetscape.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Ford advised there is an upcoming Highway 79 South meeting, June 29, 1994, 6:00
P.M.
Commissioner Hoagland reminded staff that election of officers takes place in July and should
be on the July agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Salyer to adjourn at
7:45 P.M.
PCMIN08/06194 9 0e/14/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6. 1994
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on
Monday, July 18, 1994, 6:00 P.M., Rencho California Water District Board Room, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula California.
Chairman Steve Ford
Secretary
PCMIN06/Oe/94 10 06/14194.
ITEM #3
MEIVIORANDUIVI
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornldll, Director of Planning
July 18, 1994
Director's Hearing Case Update
The following three cases were approved at Director's Hearings in June, 1994:
PA94-0036, Minor Public Use Permit
PA94-0037, Minor Public Use Permit
PA94-0005, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27921
Attachment:
1. Planning Director's Hearing Action Agendas for June, 1994 - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING ACTION AGENDAS FOR JUNE, 1994
R:\DIP, HFaAR\Mj~MO\7-18-94.DH 6124194 klb 2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S ltl~,ARING
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 2, 1994 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
PUBLIC ItEARING
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA94-0005, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27921
First Pacific National Bank
27300 Jefferson Avenue
Subdivide a 0.9 acre parcel with existing commercial development
into 2 parcels in the Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zone.
Exempt from CEQA per Section 15315
Craig Ruiz
Approve
ACTION:
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
R:~DIRHEAR\AGENDA~4-14-94.AGN 6/2,~494 klb 1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S ltEARING
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 16, 1994 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no__t listed on
the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the
Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. Them is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. 94-0037 - Minor Public Use Permit
New Covenant Fellowship
26111 Ynez Road
Church, Office and Classrooms in an existing building. Total area
is' 19,544 square feet. Sanctuary is approximately 6,230 square
feet in area, Classrooms are approximately 6.273 square feet in
area, Offices are approximately 3,147 square feet in area.
Categorical Exemption per Section 15301(a) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
APPROVED
R:\DIRHEAR\AGENDA\4-14-94.AGN 6/24/94 klb 1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA D]RECTOR'S WF, ARING
REGULAR MlV, IZ, TING
JUNE 2:3, 1994 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL BUILtlING AND SAFETY CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie U'bnoske, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to'the Senior Planner about an item not listed on
the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fried out and fried with the
Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
PA94-0036, Minor Public Use Permit
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Brentwood Montessori School
27635 Jefferson Avenue
To locate a Montessori School in an existing building in a
commercial shopping center
Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301
Craig Ruiz
Approve
APPROVED
ADJOtrRNMENT
R:\DIRHEAR\AGENDA\6-23-94.AGN 6/24/94 klb
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning,
DATE:
July 18, 1994
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. 94-0060- A Twenty-Eight Foot Four Inch High
(28'4"), One Hundred Forty-Two (142) Square Foot Freestanding Freeway
Oriented Sign for Wendy's located on the West Side of Interstate 15
Prepared By:
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
DIRECT Staff to approve Planning Application No. 94-0060 for
a twenty-eight foot four inch (28'4") high, one hundred forty-two
(142) square foot freestanding freeway oriented sign for
Wendy's.
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. 94-0024, Amendment No. 1 (Wendy's) was approved by the
Planning Director on July 7, 1994. Planning Application No. 94-0060 was submitted to the
Planning Department on July 5, 1994. This project is before the Planning Commission
because current policy requires the Commission to direct Staff with respect to freeway
oriented signs. The height of the sign is consistent with two other signs in the area. More
specifically, the sign for In 'N' Out (which is directly to the south of the project) is thirty (30)
feet high. The sign for Hungry Hunter to the north is approximately twenty-five (25) feet in
height. The sign height is within the height range of these two signs. For this reason, Staff
did not require a flag test to determine the height of the sign.
Attachments:
Exhibits - Blue Page 2
a. Site Plan
b. Elevations
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-00~0
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
-4'
GRAPHICS:
· PYLON: While biters on an luminated red background, with a black scroll. Cameo
V~ndy has red hak with blue hair ribbons, a blue and white striped dress on · white
background with · black border. Enlir· sign surrounded by · yellow bevel and flange.
· FEATURE BOARD: Black lelters on a yellow panel. surrounded by · field ol red.
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0060
EXHIBIT - B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994
ELEVATION
ITEM #5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
July 18, 1994
Capital Improvement Program for Rancho California Water District
Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT PC Resolution No. 94- entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT RANCHO
CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S 1994-95 CAPITAL
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
ADOPTED CITY GENERAL PLAN." ·
BACKGROUND
Section 65403(c)of State Planning and Zoning Law requires special districts and joint powers
agencies to submit their Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) to local governments to
determine if the projects are consistent with the adopted general plan. Consistency reviews
are intended to support the local government's implementation of its General Plan. Special
district capital projects that are inconsistent with the adopted General Plan may not be
constructed unless the district makes a subsequent determination overruling the City's
~nconsistency finding.
To begin the process of reviewing special district CIPs, the Planning Director sent letters to
local special districts in early 1994 reminding them of the requirements of State Law. In April
1994, Rancho California Water District (RCWD) submitted a list of their 1994/95 Capital
Construction Projects to the Commission for its review.
To determine whether or not the District's Capital Construction Projects are consistent with
the adopted City General Plan, staff recommends that the Commission consider the following
questions:
Are potable water services being provided in areas where urban
development is planned by the City?
Are reclaimed water facilities being provided in areas where urban
development, or users of reclaimed water, are planned by the City?
Is the protection of local water resources being addressed or ensured by
these capital construction projects?
DISCUSSION
The majority of RCWD's capital projects are located in, and intended to support urban
development, within Assessment District 161. Included among the capital projects are two
on-going activities; the Date Street Reservoir and Transmission Main, and the Interstate 15/
Ynez Road Undercrossing. In addition to the capital projects listed below, RCWD also included
a number of minor non-capital improvements. These included the installation of neighborhood
pressure regulation equipment, and upgrades to existing well and pump stations. The major
capital improvement projects included in RCWD's Capital Construction Program for fiscal year
1994/95 are as follows:
Santa Gertrudis Transmission Line - this new 54" line will follow Winchester and
Nicolas Roads and will connect the new Date Street Reservoir to a future Metropolitan
Water District aqueduct connection.
Winchester Pump Station - this new pump station is located next to the existing RCWD
well near the intersection of Margarita and Winchester Roads.
Margarita South Transmission Line - this new 24" line will link the existing 1380
Pressure Zone in the Meadowview area with the new 1380 Pressure Zone in A.D. 161.
The Winchester Reservoir - this 5 million gallon reservoir is located north of the City
and will support future urban development within A.D, 161.
Date Street Transmission Line and Reservoir Feeder Main - this new 30" line from the
proposed Winchester Reservoir will serve development along Murrieta Hot Springs Road
and in the area around the Warm Springs Specific Plan.
Reclaimed Water Storage Master Plan - a master plan for ground water recharge, flood
flow detention, and water storage on 342 acres adjacent to the Temecula City Limits
and the new Date Street Reservoir.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Based upon Staff's evaluation of the adopted General Plan, the CIP consistency and master
planning processes are consistent with the Plan because of the following policy statements
in the Public Facilities Element:
Policy 6,6 requires all new sewer and water infrastructure to be consistent with
the General Plan; and
Policy 6.5 encourages local water providers to prepare long-term water
management programs.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No, 94- - Blue Page 3
2. Description and Location of Projects - Blue Page 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC 94-
- PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
TEtE CITY OF TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S 1994-95
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE CONSISTENT
WITH ~ ADOPTED CITY GENF_,RAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Temecula adopted the City' s first General
Plan on November 9, 1993; and,
Wn~,REAS, Section 65403(c) of State Planning and Zoning Law requires special
districts and joint powers agencies which provide urban services to submit their CIPs to the City
Planning Commission to determine if they are consistent with the adopted General Plan; and,
WllEREAS, the Rancho California Water District submitted a list of theix 1994/95
capital construction projects to the City for review; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hail, the Temecula
Library, the U.S. Post Offme, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and
IV!tEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the consistency of these projects
with the General Plan.
NOW, TI:IRREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RF_~OLVE AND DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECTS INCLUDED
IN RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S 1994/95 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN FOR ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ItEREBY 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 day of
, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONF_J~:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROJECTS
Doug Kulberg
John F. Hennigsr
Phillip L. Forbes
E. P. '~Job" Lemons
Kenneth C. Deal3
Perr~ R. Louck
Lxnda P,1 Fregosn
· Jennlng~. EnggtrBnd
& Henrikson
April 4, 1994
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Director of Planning
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT: 1994/1995 Capital Construction Projects '
Dear Gary:
Rancho California Water District CRCWD) is in receipt of your letter dated
February 22, 1994 regarding RCWD's Capital Improvement Program for the
1994/95 fiscal year. District Staff has presented the following list of capital
projects (to be constructed during the 1994/95 fiscal year and possibly into the
1995/96 fiscal years) to RCWD's Engineering and Operations and Finance and
Audit Committees. Both Committees recommended the Board of Directors
approve construction of these projects. These projects and the District's
budget will be approved at the May 13, 1994 Board meeting.
It is anticipated the design and construction will require approximately 18
months. The attached map shows the locations of these projects.
The first set of projects are within the boundaries of Assessment
District No. 161.
a)
Winchester Pump Station is located adjacent to RCWD's Well
No. 108 on the northeast side of the Santa Gertrudis Channel
/ Margarita Road overcrossing. This station is designed to serve
mainly those portions of Assessment District No. 161 within the
boundaries of RCWD.
b)
54-1nch Santa Gertrudis Transmission Main will be placed
predominantly parallel to the Santa Gemdis Channel from
Ynez Road to Nicolas Road crossing Winchester Road. This
line will be the water source for the Winchester Pump Station.
Eventually this line will be extended along Nicolas Road to a
future Metropolitan Water District (IVFvVD) aqueduct
connection, as a source of supply of imported water.
J
GaryThornhjll
April 4, 1994
Page Two
c)
30-Inch Date Street Transmission Main is located within the future alignment
of Date Street within Assessment District No. 161 from Margarita Road to
Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the east side of Winchester Road. This line,
in conjunction with items e) and f) listed below, is the discharge line from the
pump station to the Winchester Reservoir, item e).
d)
24-Inch Margarita South Transmission Main lies within Margarita Road,
south of Winchester to General Kearny RoacL thence along General Kearny
Road to Via Norte in the Meadowview area. This line will hnk the existing
1380 Pressure Zone in the Meadowview area with the new 1380 Pressure
Zone in the Assessment District 161 area.
e)
Winchester Reservoir, a 5 million-gallon reservoir, is located southwest of the
French Valley Airport and is the storage facility for Assessment District No.
161. This facility is located outside the City of Temecula's boundary.
30-Inch Winchester Reservoir Feeder Main is located from Winchester Road
to the Winchester Reservoir along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and various
proposed tract rights-of-ways.
g)
The final project within Assessment District No. 161 boundary will install
individual pressure regulators of the existing residences within the Winchester
Collection and Roripaugh Hills Developments.
Well No. 231 Site Improvements - Located within Tract No. 23267-3 along Loma
Linda Road, this well requires the replacement of the aboveground motor and pump
with a submersible unit to mitigate noise and the grading and paving of the site.
Well No. 216 - Located adjacent to the Temecula Sports Park along Margafita Road
this well is powered by the natural gas engine. State law requires that all stationary
engines be equipped with a catalytic converter by January 1, 1995.
East Bluff Pump Station - Similar to No. 3 above, this station requires the installation
of catalytic converters on the five engines at this site. This facility is located adjacent
to Eastern Municipal Water District's Temecula Valley Wastewater Reclamation
Facility.
Reclaimed Water Seasonal Storage Master Plans - The scope of this Master Plan
would include establishing and dedicating the location of the "western" transportation
corridor and flood detention facilities and will also plan for the continued use of the
324 acres purchased by the RCWD in 1993, for seasonal storage of reclaimed water.
Gary Thornhill
April 4, 1994
Page Three
Well No. 101 - This well is located at the intersection of Diaz road and Cherry. Street.
This well also requires the installation of a catalytic converter.
The following projects are currently under construction and will carry over into the
1994/1995 fiscal year.
Ynez Road/Interstate 15 Crossing - A continuation of the Ynez Road widening
project, the project consists of the extension of a 48-inch and a 54-inch transmission
main along Ynez Road north of Winchester Road, crossing Interstate 15 to Madison
Avenue.
Date Street Reservoir and Transmission Facilities - Although these facilities are not
within the boundaries of the City of Temecula, RCWD feels the City of Temecula
should be aware of this construction.
a)
Date Street Reservoir - Located at the end of the projected alignment of Date
Street, is a 10 million-gallon concrete reservoir. In an effort to mitigate sight
impacts, this facility will be partially buried.
b)
Date Street Transmission Main has diameters of 48 inches and 54 inches and
is located within the Date Street right-of-way from Madison Avenue to the
above-mentioned reservoir.
Hopefully the above information is helpful to you. If the City is plarming any projects in
these areas it would be beneficial to all to coordinate our activities, similar to our work on
the Ynez Road Widening Project.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNL~ WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB: eb40/FEG
CC:
Bob Lemons, Director of Engineering
John Hurlburt, Planning & Capital Projects Manager
Attachment
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 1994
Change of Zone No. 5691
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
RECOMMEND Adoption of the Negative Declaration for
adoption for Change of Zone No 5691; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- recommending the
adoption of Ordinance No. 94- amending the official
zoning map of the City for Change of Zone Application
No. 5691 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report.
Los Ranchitos Estates c/o Tom Henrich
Markham and Associates
Change of Zoning designation of five (5) parcels from R-A-2 1/2
(Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O
(Commercial-Office).
The north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 660 feet
west of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Margarita
Road
R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel
size)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre
minimum parcel size)
South:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial), R-3 (General
Residential) and R-4 (Planned Residential)
East:
R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre
minimum parcel size) and C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial)
West:
R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum
parcel size)
PROPOSED ZONING:
C-O (Commercial Office)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Professional Office
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: North:
Vacant
South:
Vacant (southeast), Residential (southwest)
East:
Mini-Market/Gas Station
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 27 acres
BACKGROUND
Change of Zone No. 5691 was submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on
January 11, 1990. The case was not completed by the County of Riverside and was
transferred to the City of Temecula in July of 1990. Development Review Committee (DRC)
meetings were held on December 6, 1990 and December 12, 1991. Subsequent to a later
DRC meeting in 1992, the applicant requested that the project be put on hold pending the
adoption of the City's General Plan. Upon adoption of the General Plan, Staff sent out two
letters providing direction to the applicant and establishing time frames for the applicant to
contact Staff (reference Attachment No. 3). The applicant was informed in the letters that
failure to contact Staff would result in their application being scheduled for a public hearing
with a recommendation for denial without prejudice. However, the property changed
ownership and the new owner requested that Staff continue processing the application;
therefore, the item is now before the Planning Commission for their consideration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a request for the redesignation of five (5) parcels from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential
Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial Office). There are
approximately 27 total acres involved in this project. No applications for development of the
property have been filed with the rezoning request.
ANALYSIS
Environmental Review
Staff conducted an Initial Study for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Based upon Staff's analysis, a Negative Declaration has been recommended for
adoption. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the potential for impacts;
however, the request may facilitate impacts when future projects are realized on the site.
Through preparation of the Initial Study, staff looked at a maximum development scenario for
any future development on the site and identified potential impacts and measures to mitigate
them (see Section III of Attachment No. 4: Initial Study). Site specific environmental analysis
will be necessary upon the submittal of development plans for future projects,
St~ecific Plan Overlay
The project site lies within a Specific Plan Overlay as identified in the City's General Plan.
According to the General Plan, the Specific Plan designation is intended for those portions of
the community which because of size, location, and special development opportunities require
a coordinated, comprehensive planning approach. The Plan further states that in areas with
an aggregate area of 100 or more acres, approval of a specific plan is required prior to the
approval of any discretionary land use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading
permit. Since the project is under 1 O0 acres, it is not subject to these provisions, and a
Specific Plan will not be required for this project.
EXISTING ZONING, FUTURE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Change of Zone request is for a redesignation of the site from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential
Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial Office), Commercial Office
zone uses are likely to be similar to uses allowed in the Professional Office land use
designation. This determination is based upon conducting a review of Commercial Office uses
permitted in Section 9.72 of Ordinance No. 348 and those uses contained in both the City's
General Plan and Draft Development Code. According to the General Plan, the Professional
Office designation includes primarily single or multi-tenant offices and may include supporting
uses. Office developments are intended to include low rise offices situated in a landscaped
garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at appropriate locations. Typical uses
include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and
community facilities. Supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial uses may
be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees.
Uses listed in the Section 9.72 of Ordinance No. 348 are similar in nature to those listed in
the General Plan, If a development project is submitted prior to the adoption of the City's
Development Code, the project will be reviewed to determine if it is likely to be consistent
with the Development Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial Study was completed by Staff for Change of Zone No. 5691. Staff has determined
through their analysis that the Change of Zone request will not immediately have an effect
upon the environment; however, it may facilitate future impacts. Staff has identified potential
future impacts to the environment based upon future development of the site. Any potential
impacts from future development on the site will be required to be mitigated to a level less
than significant. Staff therefore recommends that a Negative Declaration be adopted for the
Change of Zone proposal.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Change of Zone No. 5691 is a request for a redesignation of a five parcels totalling 27 acres
from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial
Office). Based upon staff's analysis, the Change of Zone request is consistent with the City's
General Plan land use designation of Professional Office. An Initial Study was conducted for
the Change of Zone request and a Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. The
Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the potential for impacts; however, the
request may facilitate impacts when future projects are realized on the site.
FINDINGS
The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the initial Study for this project. No immediate impacts
to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential
Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial Office). Impacts
from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant.
The zone change from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel
size) to C-O (Commercial Office) is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use
designation for the site. It is likely that Commercial Office uses will ultimately be
consistent with the Professional Office designation. The uses are similar in both
Ordinance No. 348 and the draft 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. Section 9.75.a. of Ordinance No. 348
(Development Standards for Commercial Office) requires no minimum size for lot area.
The parcels total approximately 27 gross acres. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ.pC 7/14/94 klb 4
Attachments:
2,
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Draft Ordinance No. 94- - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 14
Exhibits - Blue Page 34
A. Vicinity Map
B. ZOning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Change of Zone Exhibit
Correspondence - Blue Page 35
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AMENDING TI~. OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF TtW. CITY FOR
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. ~91, CHANGING ~ ZONE
FROM R-A-2 1/2 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 2 1/2 ACRE
MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE) TO C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) ON
PROPERTY LOCATF~ ON Tnlv. NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79
SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET WEST OF ~ INTERSECTION
OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950-100-001, 950-100-012, 950-100-013,
9~0-100-014 AND 950-100-01~
WHEREAS, Los Ranchitos Estates fried Change of Zone No. 5691 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County I And Use and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
Wi~.REAS, Tom Henrich acquired the property and requested that the application
continue to be processed in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside
County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WItF. REAS, Change of Zone No. 5691 was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Change of Zone No. 5691 on July 18,
1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had
an oppormhity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at said public heating, 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. 5691;
NOW, TItEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COhlhlISSION OF THE~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings.
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Change of Zone No.
5691, makes the following fred'rags, to wit:
- (1) The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study for this project. No immediate impacts to the
environment will result from the Change of Zone from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2
1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial Office). Impacts from future development
can be mitigated to a level less than significant.
(2) The zone change from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre
minimum parcel size) to C-O (Commercial Office) is consistent with the City's General Plan
Land Use designation for the site. It is likely that Commercial Office uses will ultimately be
consistent with the Professional Office designation. The uses are similar in both Ordinance No.
348 and the draft General Plan.
(3) 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. Section 9.75.a. of Ordinance No. 348
(Development Standards for Commercial Office) requires no minimum size for lot area. The
parcels total approximately 27 acres. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage requirements will
be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
(4) Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
(5)
of the community.
Change of Zone No. 5691 is compatible with the health, safety and welfare
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project
which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, no significant impact would immediately result to the natural or built environment
in the City. Future development of the site may result in impacts to the environment, however,
these can be mitigated to a level less than significant at the project development review stage.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 18th day of July, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HIZ. REBY 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 18th day of July,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHYLL
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT NO.
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
R:\STAFFRPT\$691CZ.PC 7114194 klb ~0
ATt'ACHMENT N0. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF TFfF~ CITY COUNCIL OF TH'F~ CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMI~NDING THF~ OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY
FOR CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. ~591, CHANGING
ZONE FROM R-A-2 1/2 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 2 1/2 ACRE
MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE) TO C-O (CONINIF-RCIAL OFFICE) ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79
SOUTH, APPROXIMATE~LY 660 FF.F.T WEST OF ~ INTERSECTION
OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950-100-001, 950-100-012, 950-100-013,
950-100-014 AND 950-100-015
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City
Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law
of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The zoning district as
shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Zoning Map
for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to
time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning
Map is amended by placing in effect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 23
and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk
of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted
in at least three public places in the City.
Section 3. Titis Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify 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 Councilxnembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ. PC 7114194 klb 11
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of ,
199_.
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9__ __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY C!.RRK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson
City Attorney
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ. PC 7114194 klb 12
CITY OF TKMECULA
CITY COUNCIL
MAP NO.:
CHANGE OF ZONE NO.: 5691
ORDINANCE NO.:
ADOI,,n:fiD:
EFFECTIVE:
R:\STAFFKFT~691CZ. PC 7/14/94 Ifib 1 ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of Project: Change of Zone No. 5691
2. Case Numbers: Change of Zone No. 5691
3. Location of Project: The north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 660 feet west of
the intersection of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road
4. Description of Project: A request for the redesignation of five (5) parcels from R-A-2 1/2
(Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 acre minimum parcel size) to C-O.
There are approximately 27 total acres involved in this project.
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
June 28, 1994
Los Ranchitos Estates c/o Tom Henrich
30410 Del Rey Road
Temecula, CA 92591
(909) 676-3365
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section III)
1. 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 destruction, 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?
Yes Maybe N__Q
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRP'B5691CZ.l~C 7/14/94 kJb
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
h. Exposure of people or property to geelogic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions 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?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount 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?
Yes Maybe N__o
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPTX5691CZ.PC 7/14/94 klb ]6
Yes Maybe N_.~o
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plann (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)? _ _
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, 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 numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? __ __X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals? __ __X
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ ~X
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ __X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
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? __ __
R:\STAFFRFr\5691CZ.PC 7/14/94 klb
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation)?
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
I 1. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation?
d. Alterations 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?
Yes Maybe N._q
X
X
_ _
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRIrfX5691CZ. PC 7/14/94 klb 18
Yes Maybe
b. Police protection? __X __ __
c. Schools? __ X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? __ X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X__ _ _
f. Other governmental services: __ X
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? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
b. Communications systems? __ __ X
c. Water systems? __ __ X
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? __ __ X
e. Storm water drainage systems? X __
f. Solid waste disposal systems? __ __ X
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? __ __ X
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? __ __X __
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? __ X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ __ X
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ X
R:\STAFFRFY~5691CZ.PC 7114194 klb 19
19.
20.
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities?
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe N._Q
X
X
X
x
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ.lK? 7114194 klb 20
III. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
No. The Change of Zone proposal will not immediately result in unstable earth conditions or
changes in geologic substructures. Upon ultimate development of the site, projects which are
consistent with the zoning will be required to be reviewed through the Development Review/Use
Permit Process. Construction and grading for typical development in this zone will not be at depths
which would affect any geologic substructures. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
1.b.
Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the disruption.
displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the soft, it may ultimately facilitate it. Any future
development will result in disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the soil, as
all grading activity requires disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the soil.
Any impacts will not be considered significant due to the fact that the site has previously been
graded, and that the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil
can be minimized through project design. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in any physical changes to
the site, future Commercial-Office development will result in a change to topographic and ground
surface relief features. This will be as a result of the creation of driveways, site improvements and
building pad sites. Impacts to the topography and/or ground surface relief features can be mitigated
through the Development Review process for future development on the site. Slopes will be
required to be planted for erosion control. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
l.d.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor development of the site will result in the destruction,
covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features
exist on the site (based upon information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan
Environmental Impact Report). In addition, no unique physical features were identified on the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in any physical changes to
the site, it may facilitate development of the site. Ultimate development of the site will result in
increased wind and water erosion of soils on and off-site. Grading will occur for the creation of
building pads, site improvements and driveways. The potential for wind and water erosions of soil
from the manufactured slopes will be increased. This will be mitigated through planting of slopes
for erosion control consistent with Uniform Building Code Standards and Ordinance No. 457. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
l.f.
Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in changes in siltation, deposition
and erosion; however, ultimate development of this site will result in changes in siltation,
deposition and erosion. As mentioned in response 1 .e., due to the creation of manufactured slopes
for the driveways, the potential exists for erosion. This in turn would result in an increase of
siltation and deposition at the bottom of any slopes. Any potential impact can be mitigated in the
manner discussed in response 1 .e. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ.PC 7114194 klb
1.g.
1.h.
l.i.
Air
2.a.b.
Water
3.a.
No. The Change of Zone request and subsequent development of the site will not result in
modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None exist on the project site, nor are
proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result the exposure of people and
property to earthquake hazards, ultimate development of the site will expose people and property
to earthquake hazards. This is because the project is located in Southern California; an area which
is seismically active. Any potential impacts can be mitigated through building construction which
is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. The project will not expose people or
property to geologic hazards such as landslides, or mudslides. No known landslides, are located
on the site, and the potential for exposure of people to landslides is low due to the topography of
the site and potential locations of building pad(s). The same is true for mudslides. There is a
potential for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. Any potential impacts will be mitigated
through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards and
grading that is consistent with the provisions contained within Ordinance No. 457. The above
information was obtained through the City of Temeoula General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The Change of Zone request site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
as identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special
Studies Zone Map. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in air emissions, in the deterioration
of ambient air quality and in the creation of objectionable odors; however, the Change of Zone
from low-density Residential to Commercial-Office will create situations whereby air emissions may
increase (during peak AM and PM traffic). Air emissions and objectionable odors will occur
during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not
considered significant. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use designation
for the site. Air Quality analysis in the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report shows no
significant impact to air quality at buildout. The analysis was conducted with the assumption that
land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in, nor shall any future development
of this site result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any change in
climate either locally or regionally.
No. The Change of Zone request wilt not result in, nor will ultimate development of the site result
in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh
waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either marine or fresh water sources. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRIri'\5691CZ,PC 7/14/94 klb 22
3.b.
3.d.
3.f.
3.g.
3.h.
Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in changes to absorption rates,
drainage panems and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however future development on the
site will result in changes when a project is realized. Previously permeable ground will be rendered
impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape-and driveways. While absorption
rates and surface runoff will change, any impacts can be mitigated through site design at the
development review stage. Drainage conveyances will be required which will safely and adequately
handle any of the runoff which is createxl by the realization of a project at this site. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Maybe. The Change of Zone proposal will not result in alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters; however, future development of the site may result in alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters. The project is not located within or adjacent to an identified floodway: however, it
is located within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation area. Emergency response systems designed to be
implemented in the event of dam failure will be sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts to this
project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The Change of Zone proposal will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in
any waterbody. Ultimate development of the site will result in an incremental change in the amount
of surface water generated; however, these impacts are not foreseen as being significant.
Furthermore, no major waterbodies are located in the subject project area. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in any discharge into surface waters
or in any alteration of surface water quality. However, future development of the site will result
in discharges into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance
of a grading permit for any development proposal, the developer will be required to comply with
the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the
State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be perraffled until an NPDES Notice of
Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES
requirements. any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The Change of Zone request will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
groundwaters, nor will ultimate development of the site. Construction on the site will not be at
depths sufficient to have an impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
No. Neither the Change of Zone proposal nor any future development on the site will result in a
change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Reference response 3 .f. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in a reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service currently exists in proximity of the
project sire. Typically, additional water service will be provided by Rancho California Water
District (RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property
owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ. PC 7114194 lab 23
3.i. Yes, The proposal will expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3 .c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Plant Life
4.a.
No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in a significant change to the diversity
of species, or number of any native species of plants, nor will any future development of the site.
No native species of plants have been identified on the site. In addition, the site has been
previously disturbed with existing development to the north, south and east. No significant impacts
are anticipat~xl as a result of this project.
4.b.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request nor any future development on the site will result in a
reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plant. There
are no unique or rare plants on the site. In addition, threatened or endangered species will not be
significantly affected (Reference response 4.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the introduction of new species
to the site. Upon ultimate development on the site, new species of plants may be introduced. No
significant native vegetation has been identified on the site, therefore, no significant impacts are
expected from the introduction of these species. Any future development of the site will not result
in the creation of a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species because the site has been
previously disturbed and because of existing development to the north, east and south. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d.
No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in a reduction in the acreage of any
agricultural crop, nor will any future development on the site. No prime farmland. farmland of
statewide or local impoffance, or unique farmland is located within the project site. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Animal Life
5 .a.b,
d,e.
Maybe. The Change of Zone project site lies within the Riverside County Stephens Kangaroo Rat
Habitat Conservation Plan Preliminary Study Area. The potential for the change in the diversity
and number (reduction) of the species, producing a barrier to the migration of Stephens Kangaroo
Rat as well as the deterioration of its habitat exists within the project area. During the planning
phase of the project, a specific site survey will be conducted to determine if the SKR presently
inhabits the site. If the Stephens Kangaroo Rat is identified on the project site, the project could
contribute to an incremental reduction of SKR habitat. Any impacts to the SKR would be mitigated
by the Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fees as required by the City of Temecula. Since a
Habitat Conservation Plan has not been established as of this date, the impacts to the Stephens
Kangaroo Rat may be mitigated through the payment of the Interim Mitigation Fee pursuant to
Ordinance No. 663. This fee will be imposed as a Condition of Approval for a project at this site.
No other sensitive species have been identified upon the site. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ.PC 7/14/94 ]fib
No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the introduction of any new
wildlife species into the area, nor will any subsequent development projects. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Noise
Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in increases to existing noise levels;
however, it may facilitate increases from the development of the site. Upon ultimate development
of the site, there will be resultant increases to existing noise levels. The land is currently vacant
and any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels during construction phases
as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. These impacts will not be considered
significant due to the fact that the potential for noise impacts will be discussed at the development
review stage and mitigated through site design (i.e. buffering, setbacks). No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b.
Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the exposure of people to severe
noise levels. Ultimate development of the site may expose people to strong noise levels due to the
fact that the subject project site is adjacent to a heavily travelled thoroughfare (Highway 79 South).
Any potential impacts can be addressed at the development review stage and mitigated through
project design (i.e. walls, berms, landscaping and buffering). In addition, development of the site
may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase. Grading
machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered
very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. The noise will not be
considered significant since it will be of short duration. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
Yes. The Change of Zone will not immediately result in the exposure of people to severe
vibrations. The project may expose people to severe vibrations during the development/construction
phase (short run). The exposure to severe vibrations will be of short duration and will not be
considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Light and Glare
Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately produce or result in light or glare.
Ultimate development on the site will result in new light sources. All light and glare has the
potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. No impacts are foreseen from light and glare
since any future development on the site will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No.
655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Land Use
Yes. The Change of Zone request will alter the present land use of the area particularly the land
use designation for the site. The site is currently vacant. When a development project is realized
on the Site the use of the land will be altered. The Change of Zone request will be consistent with
the General Plan Land Use designation for the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
R:\STAFFRFY~691CZ. PC 7/14/94 klb 25
8.b.
No. The Change of Zone request will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of
the site as described in the City's General Plan. The Change of Zone request to Commercial-Office
is consistent wim, the Professional Office Land Use designation contained in the City's General
Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in an increase in the rate
of use of any natural resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource, ultimate developmere
of the site with Commercial-Office uses will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural
resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent
depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project because of the scale of any proposed development.
Risk of Upset
10.a,b.
No. The Change of Zone request will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any
hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions, since none are proposed in
the request. Upon ultimate development of the site, the risk of explosion or the release of
hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions shall be relatively low based
upon permitted uses within the Commercial-Office zone. Any uses which may pose a greater risk
will require a Conditional Use Permit, therefore, any potential impact can be addressed and
mitigated at the development review stage. The same explanations apply to the use, storage,
transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
lO.c.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request nor subsequent development projects on the site will
interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is
not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. Any future development
will ultimately take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency
response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Population
11.
Maybe. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in altering the location,
distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of the area, however it may facilitate
it. Ultimate development of Commercial-Office uses on the site will generate jobs which in turn
may result in incremental alterations to the location, distribution, density and growth of human
population in the area. Impacts are not seen as significant because sufficient infrastructure exists
in the area and because the amount of growth is a small increment of the total growth expected in
the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRFr\5691CZ.PC 7/14/94 klb 26
Homin2 -
12.
Maybe. Reference response 11. An increase in population may result in an increased affect on
existing housing and has the potential to create a demand for additional housing. These increases
will not pose a significant impact to the existing or future housing stock within the area because
existing housing stock and future housing stock will be sufficient to acconunodate any increases in
population. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.
No. The Change of Zone request will not immediately result in the generation of substantial
additional vehicular movement. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use
designation for the site. Traffic analysis in the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report shows
no significant impact to circulation at buildout in this area. The analysis was conducted with the
assumption that land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations. Upon
submittal of a development plan, the applicant will be required to submit a letter from a certified
Engineer stating that impacts from this project to adjacent intersections will be less than five
percent. A focused traffic analysis will be required for individual projects that have greater than
a five (5) percent impact on affected intersections. Any impacts can be mitigated at this time. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
Yes. The Change of Zone request will not immediately affect existing parking facilities, nor will
it immediately result in an increased demand for new parking. Upon ultimate development of the
site, there will be an increased demand for new parking which will be required for the project as
per City Ordinance. Off-site parking will be required and consistency with City Ordinances
regarding the amount of off-street parking required/provided will be reviewed during the
development review stage. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
Maybe. The Change of Zone request will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems,
including public transportation; however, ultimate development of the site, impacts may occur to
existing systems, including public transportation. Mitigation measures will be included at the
development project stage as required. Any impacts upon public transportation can be mitigated
at the design/development review stage of the project by adhering to recommendations from the
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in alterations to present
patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods; it may facilitate it. The site is
currently vacant and ultimate construction of Commercial Office uses on the site will result in
alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. The alterations
will not be seen as significant because the alterations to present patterns of circulation/movement
of people and/or goods will serve the subject project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
13.e.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request nor any future development proposal(s) on the subject
site will result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists currently in the
proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ. PC 7/14/94 klb 27
13.f.
Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately result in an increase in traffic
hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians, ultimate development of the site will result in
an increase in traffic hazards to the above mentioned areas. Any impacts can be mitigated to a
level less than significant through site design which is consistent with City standards. Potential
conflicts can be mitigated at the development stage of the project. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Public Services
14.a,b.
Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection; ultimate development of the site with
Commercial-Office uses will provide impacts to these areas. Fire mitigation fees will be required
to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits for any development project on the site. These
fees will offset any impacts which are created by the new development. There will also be a
resultant incremental increase in the need for police protection because increases in commercial
development ultimately generates the need for additional housing stock (reference response No. 12).
Any impacts to existing and future levels of service for police protection can be mitigated through
the revenue generators which fund the City's police force (i.e. sales tax, property tax, transient
occupancy tax, motor vehicle tax, etc.). These impacts are not seen as significant.
14.c.
Maybe. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon
or result in a need for new or altered school facilities; ultimate development of the site with
Commercial Office uses may generate an incremental need for additional housing stock (reference
response No. 12). Any rise in residential development generates the need for additional/expanded
school facilities. Any impacts can be reduced to a level less than significant through the payment
of school fees which will be required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits for any
development on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d.
Maybe. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon
or result in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities; ultimate development
of the site with Commercial Office uses may. As mentioned in Response No. 12, commercial
development may result in an increase in demand for additional housing stock. Additional
residential units may result in a need for new/expanded park and/or recreational facilities. Quimby
fees are required to be paid prior to the recordation of a final map for residential units to finance
the creation/expansion of park and recreation facilities. Due to payment of these fees, plus the
limited scale of the project, any impacts will be incremental and can be mitigated to a level less
than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e,
Yes. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon or
result in a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads; future development of the site
will result in a need for the maintenance of the above mentioned facilities. Funding for
maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula
from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a
result of the ultimate development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be
considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed
expenses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ,PC 7/14/94 klb 28
14.f.
Enerav
15.a,b.
Utilities
16.a
16.b.
16.c.
16.d.
16.e.
Maybe. The Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial affect upon or result ·
in a need for new or altered library services; however, future development on the site may have
an impact upon the above mentioned services. As has been previously discussed (reference
Response No. 12), additional commercial uses in an area may-generate the need for additional
housing stock. This in turn will result in an incremental increase in result in an incremental
increase in demand for library facilities. These impacts are not seen as significant and can be
mitigated to a level less than significant through payment of library fees. These fees are paid on
residential units prior to the issuance of building permits. No other governmental series will be
affected. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will result in the
use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy, nor will there be any subsequent increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy. Increases
will occur as a result of ultimate construction of Commercial-(2fffice uses on the site. These
increases will be limited because of the scale of the project, and are therefore, not seen as
significant.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result
in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. The project site is
within proximity of existing facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result
in a need for new systems or substantial 'alterations to communication systems. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result
in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water systems. Typically, water service is
available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result
in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems. According to the
City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report 0iIR), implementation of the General
Plan (of which this project is considered consistent with) any future project on the site would not
significantly impact wastewater services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Yes. The Change of Zone request will not result in a need for new systems or substantial
alterations to storm water drainage systems (reference response No. 3.b,c.); however, any
subsequent development on the site will result in a need for new storm water drainage systems.
These will be required at the development review stage and the project will not be approved until
it is proven that the storm water drainage system is sufficient. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~691CZ,PC 7114194 klb 29
16.f.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site wilt result
in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any impacts
from solid waste created by future development on the site can be mitigated through participation
in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are~ implemented by the City. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.g.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent development on the site will result
in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above.
There is existing development to the east and south of the project site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Human He31th
17.a,b.
Maybe. As mentioned in response 10.a,b. the Change of Zone request will not result in a risk of
explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset
conditions, since none are proposed in the request. Upon ultimate development of the site, the risk
of explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions
shall be relatively low based upon permitted uses within the Commercial-Office zone. Any uses
which may pose a greater risk will require a Conditional Use Permit, therefore, any potential
impact can be addressed and mitigated at the development review stage. The same explanations
apply to the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
18.a.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any subsequent future development on the site will
result in the obstruction of a scenic vista or view open to the public. No vistas or views open to
the public exist at the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18.b.
Maybe. The Change of Zone request will not result in the creation of aesthetically offensive site
open to public view. The site is relatively level and is currently vacant. Upon development of the
site with Commercial-Office type uses, the site will be required to be landscaped to City Standards.
Development projects for the site will need to be consistent with City Ordinances and shall be
reviewed during the development review process. Any potential negative aesthetic impacts can be
mitigated at this time. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18.c.
Maybe. The Change of Zone request will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the
surrounding area. Upon development of the site with Commercial-Office type uses, the site will
be required to be landscaped to City Standards. Development projects for the site will need to be
consistent with City Ordinances and shall be reviewed during the development review process.
Any potential negative aesthetic impacts can be mitigated at this time. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFILIrF\5691CZ,PC 7/14/94 klb 30
Recreation
19.
Maybe. Although the Change of Zone request will not immediately have a substantial effect upon
or result in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities; ultimate development
of the site with Commercial Office uses may. As mentioned in Response No. 12, commercial
development may result in an increase in demand for additional housing stuck. Additional
residential units may result in a need for new/expanded park and/or recreational facilities. Quimby
fees are required to be paid as part of development of residential units to finance the
creation/expansion of park and recreation facilities. Due to payment of these fees, plus the limited
scale of the project, any impacts will be incremental and can be mitigated to a level less than
significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
20.a.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will result in the
alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site. No
paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic sites exist on the subject project site. This
determination is based upon information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan
Environmental Impact Report. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.b.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will result in
adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehisturic or historic building, structure or object. None
exist or are known to exist on the site (reference response No. 20.a.). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
20.c.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will have the
potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. No "unique"
ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site (reference response No. 20.a.). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.d.
No. Neither the Change of Zone request, nor any future development on the site will result in
restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. None exist or are
known to exist on the site (reference response No. 20.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ.PC 7114194 klb 3]
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 sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe N__Qo
X
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short 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 project'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 project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, 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 and Game Code).
Yes
No
__x
R:\STAFFRPTX5691CZ.PC 7/14/94 klb 32
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
Matthew Fagan
Name and Title
June 27. 1994
Date
33
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ.PC 7114194 Idb 34
CITY OF TEMECULA
q
CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5691
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994
VICINITY MAP
CITY
vt
· ' ' "~
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (P-O)
C-~)-3
C-P-S - I~
-- /-% N
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
~,SIGNATION - COMMERCIAL OFIflCE (C-O)
CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5691
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5691
EXHIBIT - D CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JIJLY 18, 1994
R:\STAFFRPTX5691CZ.EXH 6/27194 sdl
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CORRESPONDENCE
R:\STAFFRPT\5691CZ.PC 7114194 klb 35
SEPHEN SCHALLER
June 30, 1994
31506 Calle Los Padres
Temecula, Ca. 92592
RECEIVED
JUL 0 1
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
nge of Zone ~~ · ~
This letter is to convey my objection to the pro- ~
posed change of zoning.
The proposed change from residential/a~riculture to
commercial/office will have a negative impact on the
country-like setting of Los Ranchoritos Estates and '
detract from the serenity of residential life for
both "Veranda" and "Country Glen" sub-divisions,
which are located very uear Hyw.79 S. and Margarita
Road.
The increased traffic and congestion cis unwanted
and will only reduce our property values.
Our family did not buy a home in Temecula so that
we would live in a commercial area.
POSt OFR~ BOX 891,524, EMECUtA CA. 92589
ITEM #7
- STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 1994
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25063 and Change of Zone No. 5598
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
CONTINUE to the September 19,1994 Planning Commission
Meeting.
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 R-R-2¼
(Rural Residential 2~ 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
This item was continued from the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting to enable staff
to re-notice the project. Subsequent to that meeting, staff was informed that there was a new
owner of the project who would submit a letter to the Commission requesting a continuance
of this item. Staff elected to delay the noticing of the project until the continuance request
was delivered. To date, the request has not been delivered. This item will be re-noticed for
the September 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting with a recommendation of denial
without prejudice.
R:\STAFFRPT\25063.PC2 7/14/94 klb
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 1994
Case No.: PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving PA94-0043, Minor
Conditional Use Permit based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Maria Smedly, Klassic Shotz Billiards
REPRESENTATIVE:
KenWade
PROPOSAL:
A request to locate a 6,800 square foot billiards hall and video
arcade in an existing building in the (C- 1/C-P) General
Commercial zone.
LOCATION:
41915Motor Car Parkway, Suites A, B & C
EXISTING ZONING:
General Commercial (C-I\C-P)
SURROUNDING
ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
General Commercial (C-1 \C-P)
General Commercial (C-1 \C-P)
General Commercial (C-I\C-P)
General Commercial C-1 \C-P)
GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE DESIGNATION:
Community Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE: Retail\Commercial
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
.West:
Automobile Dealer
Retail/Commercial
Vacant
Automobile Dealer
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb 1
BACKGROUND
This project was submitted to the Planning Department on May 24, 1994. Pursuant to City
Ordinance No. 93-05, all billlard halls and video game arcades require the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. Subsequent to the application submittal, the Planning Director
scheduled this item before the Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites A, B & C. The project
is a proposal to locate a 6,804 square foot billiards hall and video arcade in an existing
building in the General Commercial (C-I\C-P) Zone.
ANALYSIS
Area ComDatibilitv
The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to insure that the proposed use does not pose
a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Further, it is
staff's responsibility to ensure that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The project is located in a commercial shopping center and is surrounded by commercial and
vacant land uses. The closest residential development to the project is an apartment complex
located approximately 1000 feet southeast of the site (see Exhibit D). In an effort to notice
people within the area of the proposed project, staff mailed public hearing notices to the
nearest 30 property owners and surrounding businesses.
It is staff's opinion that the project is compatible with surrounding land uses and does not
pose a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Conditions
have been placed upon this project which will insure that the proposed use will not pose such
a threat. In the event that the applicant violates any of the conditions of approval, the
Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.31 of Ordinance No. 348.
Parkinq
The proposed project requires 34 parking spaces. The parcel upon which the project site is
located contains 64 parking spaces while the total number of the parking spaces required for
all the businesses located at this site is 71 spaces. The adjacent parcel to the south of the
proposed project contains a parking surplus of 18 parking spaces. Because the site has a
recorded reciprocal access and parking agreement with the parcel to the south, the proposed
use has an adequate number of parking spaces.
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned C-1 \C-P (General Commercial) and the adjacent parcels are also zoned
C-I\C-P. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Community Commercial. The proposed
commercial project is consistent with all requirements of the C- 1 \C-P zone, Ordinance 348 and
the City's General Plan.
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.PC 7/14194 klb 2
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has determined the project to be a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act. As such, no further environmental review was required,
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
In staff's opinion, the proposed billiards hall and video arcade has been conditioned to be
compatible with the surrounding uses. The project conforms with Ordinance No. 348 and is
consistent with the current zoning designation of General Commercial and the General Plan
designation of Community Commercial. The use is exempt from the California Environmental
Impact Report and conditions of approval will ensure that the project will have no adverse
impact on the built environment.
FINDINGS
PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan,
due to the fact that the proposed commercial project is consistent with the
requirements of the General Commercial zone and the General Plan Land Use
designation of Community 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. The project meets the criteria prescribed under
Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28, Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the attached
Conditions of Approval will ensure adequate circulation, access and parking which will
facilitate the proposed use.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The
project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations. Surrounding
development is predominantly commercial uses and vacant land, The proposed use has
been conditioned to ensure it will not impact the surrounding area businesses.
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment since the
project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Attachments:
Resolution - Blue Page 4
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Exhibits - Blue Page 13
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Floor Plan
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94~
R:~STAFFRP'T~43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb 4
A'rrACHMENT NO. 1
PC RF_~OLUTION NO.
A RF~OLUTION OF TIFF. PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PA94-0043,
MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT
LOCATION AND OPERATION OF A 6,800 SQUARE FOOT
BILLIARDS tLATJ. AND VIDEO GAblE ARCADE
LOCATED AT 4191S MOTOR CAR PARKWAY, SUITES
A,B,C AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-
680-0008
WltEREAS, Maria Smedly fried PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit in
accordance with City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WltFJtEAS, said Minor Conditional Use Permit application was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0043,
Minor Conditional Use Permit on July 18, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time interested persons had an oppormhity to testify either in support or in
opposition;
WItEREAS, at the public hearing, upon heating 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. PA94-0043;
NOW, THEREFORE, THF. 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 f'mdings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.28(e), no Conditional Use Permit may be appreved unless
the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Permit approved shall be
subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general weftare
of the community.
B. The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Minor Conditional Use
Permit, makes the foliowing fmdings, to wit:
B:~STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb 5
- 1. PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's
General Plan, due to the fact that the proposed commercial project is consistent with the
requirements of the General Commercial zone and the General Plan Land Use designation of
Community 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. The project meets the criteria prescribed under
Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28. In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval will assure
adequate circulation, access and parking which will facilitate the proposed use.
4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area.
The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations. Surrounding
development is predominantly commercial uses and vacant land. The proposed use has been
conditioned to insure it will not impact the surrounding area businesses.
5. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment
since the project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality
Act.
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Minor Conditional Use Permit proposed
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed use has been determined to be a
Class I Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit for the location and operation of 6,800
square foot billiards hall and video game arcade located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites
A,B,C, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-680-0008, subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb 6
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIlq'Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Tem~cula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18 day of July,
1994, by the foUowing vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNt-rrI~L
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb 7
ATTACHMENT N0.2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.PC 7/14/94 Idb 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Case No.: PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit
Project Descdption: A request for approval for the location and operation 6,800 s~luare
foot billiards hall and video game arcade located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites
A,B,C.
Applicant: Maria Smedly, Klassic Shotz Billiards
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-680-008
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by this Minor Conditional Use Permit is a request for approval
for the location and operation 6,800 square foot billiards hall and video game arcade
located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway, Suites A,B,C.
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 PA No. 94-0043. 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 one (1) year of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
the site plan for PA94-0043 Minor Conditional Use Permit marked Exhibit "D" - Site
Plan and Exhibit "E" - Floor Plan, or as amended by these conditions.
A minimum of 34 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348.
R:%STAFFR°T~43PA94.PC 7114194 klb 9
13.
Within
14.
6. A minimum of one (1) handicapped parking space shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit A.
7. Four (4) Class I1 bicycle racks shall be provided.
8. The Minor Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.31 of
Ordinance 348.
9. At such time the use is increased in size or the site is significantly altered, the applicant
shall re-file with the Planning Department.
10. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or
more, this approval shall become null and void.
11. On or before September 28, 1994, the applicant shall comply with the requirements
of Ordinance No. 94-16, the special license requirement for billiards halls.
12. Hours of operation shall be as follows:
Sunday through Thursday - 11 a .m. to 12 a.m.
Friday and Saturday - 11 a.m. to 2 a.m.
A maximum of 13 pool tables shall be allowed.
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 payable to the County Clerk in the amount of 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 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 voided by reason of failure
of condition.
Prior to the Issuance of 'Occupancy Permits
15. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
16. 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:
R:~STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7114/94 kJb 10
"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.
17.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Prior to Isauance of Occupancy
18.
The Applicant 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 Applicant requests its building permit for the project or any phase
thereof, the Applicant shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Applicant. 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 Applicant 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 Applicant 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; orovided that the Applicants is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. The above fees shall
not be applicable if, at a later date, it is determined by the Director of Public Works that
the project is exempt from said fees.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
19.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
20.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
21.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility
regulations.
R:%STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb
11
22. Restr0om fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
23. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
24. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
OTHER AGENCIES
25. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health Department transmittal dated June 6, 1994, a
copy of which is attached.
26. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Fire Department transmittal dated June 27, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
27. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated June 17, 1994, e copy of which is attached.
28. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Temecula Police
Department transmittal dated June 1, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7114/94 kJb 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.PC 7/14/94
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA94-0043, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb
"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.
17. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Pdor to Issuance of Occupancy
18.
The Applicant 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 Applicant requests its building permit for the project or any phase
thereof, the Applicant shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Applicant. 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 Applicant 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 Applicant 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; oro~ided that the Applicants is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. The above fees shall
not be applicable if, at a later date, it is determined by the Director of Public Works that
the project is exempt from said fees.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
19.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
20.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
21.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility
regulations.
R:\STAFFRPT~43PA94.PC 7114t04 klb I 1
SITE
/%
CITY OF TEMECULA
II
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
:.SIGNATION - GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-1/C-P)
CASE NO. - PA94-0043. MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18. 1994
R:~STAFFRPT\43PA94+PC 7/14/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
~11915
9-? 10-6 9-6 8-5
Motor C~r ~
~am to 1~ 11-9 '7-'7 9-6 11-2 5-9
. ITFTIT[[T]TITUIIIIII[.
llllll~
IIIll
¥nez E~oed
CASE NO. - PA94-0043, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT - D
- PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 18, 1994
SITE PLAN'
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.PC 7/14/94 klb
J
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA94-0043, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EXHIBIT - E
~LANNING COMMISSION DATE ~ JULY 18, 1994
FLOOR PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\43PA94.pC 7/14/94 klb
ITEM #9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 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)
O (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)
Plannine Area 1
Total Area
Possible Residential
Retail/Office Building Area
72 Acres
300 Units
810,000 Square Feet
Planninq Area 2
Total Area
Commercial Retail Building Area
97.8 Acres
1,555,000 Square Feet
Planninq Area 3
Total Area
Retail/Office Building Area
5.5 Acres
118,000 Square Feet
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5589 were continued from the May 23, 1994 and June
6, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. At the May 23 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission directed the applicant to provide more detailed information on the Village Center
concept proposed for Planning Area 1. At the June 6 Planning Commission meeting, the
applicant requested a continuance to the July 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting to
enable them to meet with staff to discuss the conditions of approval.
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
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP. PC5 7/I5/94 vgw 2
Development Code unless it is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
Villaae 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
mixture 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 for the project implementation responsibility for regional facilities.
That this Specific Plan be required to support either supplemental bond sales or district
restructuring and supplemental bond sales which provide for certain 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).
Landscape Development Zone (LDZ)
The provision for a 37 foot Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road was
discussed at the May 23, 1994Planning 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 Mitiqation
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 and illustratives which better defines the Village Center
Concept. 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
Specific 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.
ChanQe 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:
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution No, 94- - Blue Page 7
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Revised "Village Center Concept" Language - Blue Page 22
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan - Blue Page 23
Attachment "A", Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340 - Blue Page 24
Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, April 18, 1994 - Blue Page 25
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7115194 vgw 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP. PC5 7115/94 vgw 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF TH"F~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMI~.NDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
263 PROPOSING A 1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT COMME~RCIAL CORE,
810,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE
MULTI-FAMII .Y RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000 SQUARE
FEET OF RETAH- CO1VIMF~RCIAL; APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE
NO. 5589 TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-
R) AND HEAVY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM (A-2-20) TO
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP). THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THY~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ AND
WINCHESTER ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-
130-046 AND 047, 921-090-005, 006 AND 007.
WHEREAS, KRDC, Inc. filed Specific Plan No. 263 in accordance with the Riverside
County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHEREAS, said application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said application on July 18, 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, TI~F~REFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 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 f'mdings, to wit:
SpecificPlan263
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 Overlay.
R:\STAFFRPTX263SP. FC5 7/I5/94 vg, w 8
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 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.
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 provides 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 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.
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, Public\Institutional, 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 proposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
R:\STAFFRPT\2635p. PC5 7115/94 vgw 9
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 road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed in
conformance with City of Temecula standards.
6. Said fmdings 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 impacts 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 approval 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 18th day of July, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHA/RMAN
I HEREBY 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 18th day of July
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-IILL
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRFr\263Sp. PC5 7/15/94 vgw 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFR]PT~263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 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 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.
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 340and 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.
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,
14.
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 Quimby Act requirements for the project.
R:\STAFFRPTX2635P.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 13
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 92.00 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.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls if constructed shall be treated with graffiti-resistant
coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
20.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7/15194 vgw 14
CIRCULATION
21.
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.
22.
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.
23.
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.
24.
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.
25.
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). If required additional rights-of-way dedications
associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer.
26.
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
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.
27.
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.
28.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to
issuance of any occupancy:
Winchester Road parkway improvements, adjacent to Phase One, including
sidewalks, landscaping, and street lights shall be completed by the Developer.
R:\STAFFRP'r\263SP, PC5 7115194 vgw 15
29.
30.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is
responsible to bond for 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.
Dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Road
overpass at Interstate 15 (1-15) and the interchange ramps along with
associated additional right-of-way necessary for the widening and improvements
to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to the interchange.
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.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to
issuance of occupancy for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 SF.
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.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit Developer shall
bond for the improvements to Margarita Road, from Solaria 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 with a
reimbursement agreement.
Prior to Final Mal~ recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for 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 1 O0 foot full width right-of-way with
a reimbursement agreement.
The Developer is responsible to bond for prior 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
R:XSTAFFRPT\263SP. PC5 7/15/94 vgw 16
Drainage
31.
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).
32.
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.
33.
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.
34.
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.
35.
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.
36.
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.
37.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
38.
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
39.
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.
40.
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.
41.
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.
42.
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
43.
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.
44.
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.
45.
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.
46.
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.
47.
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.
R:\STAFFRFr\263SP. PC5 7115194 vgw 18
48. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works,
49.
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.
50. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
51.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
52.
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.
53.
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.
54,
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.
55.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing
56.
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.
57.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT\2635P.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 19
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
58.
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.
59.
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.
60.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual
property owner or an established property owner's association.
61.
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.
62.
The landscaped medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula
Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
63.
The developer, his successor or assignee, shall maintain the landscaping and medians
until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
64.
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
65.
All proposed TCSD maintenance areas (medians) shall be identified and offered for
dedication on the final map.
66.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, construction drawings for proposed
landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff.
67.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT\263Sp. PC5 7/15/94 vgw 20
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
68.
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.
69.
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,PC5 7115194 vgw 21
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
REVISED "VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPT" LANGUAGE
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP. PC5 7/15/94 vgw 22
JFriday June 3, 1~4 11:15am -- Page 21
Jl_H-B3-1994, 10:13 FRt]H 1Y,&Hg P1_114'411~
TO 19egS946477 P o 62
~ REGIONAL CEN'I'EK
Planning Area 1
L l~nuiu~ Area 1
B, Desffi~five Smmmr~
planhlng Area 1, as depicted in Rgure 12A, co~i~s of 71.97 gro~ acres, dovoted primarily t~
mixed uses including retail, oilrice, hotel, institutional, and reHd~-n~al uses. The commercial,
office, and insatufional development W~thin ~ plannhlg m ~ set're the )leeds Of azcs
residents, While mlntnlnlng COHIpatibi[ity With st residelltial ~ilvillMllllel~ A ~ Of 300
multi-family dwelling units sludl be permitted in P]anuing Area 1. Tnesc dwe!!In~ may either
1) M'~trc of Uses
It is the intent of the mixcd use development in p]annlng Aria I of tlac Tcanccuh
Regional Center to allow for a mixtree of comm.~/chbro~ccrmstitutional and x,e~identlal
useS. Th~ mixed use developmeat is de,signed to encourage active street frontages and
a comfotutble, human-scaled environment that cr-~-s a fully functioning shopping st~t
complex (i.e., a "Main Street"). This Main Street will be integrated into the overall
mixed use &vctopment in Planning Area I and wi]l be coBtlected by both Stteels and
pedesirian walkways to the plnnned ~ development in Planning Area 2. The Maln
Street will be an easy and quick walk away from offices and residences in the Temecnia
Regional Center, allowing both workers and residents to take advamage of the convenient,
locally available shopping opportunities. A conceptual illustrative site plan depicting the
Main Street concept in planning Area 1 is shown in Figu~ 12B. A detailed vicw of tl~
Main Street is illustrated in Figurc 12C.
Vv'hi.ic ~ development may be the primnxy land g in planning Area 1, it is
envisioned that thi~ planning area will also include additional employment opporttmities
such as offices and personal service shops and Imsinesscs. In~"unional and hotel uses
my be integratc'd physically into mixed use stmctnres or constructed as separa~
buildings.
Residential uses may be integrated into the same smacm~ as non-residBntial uses.
Resideutial uses and entries should constitute not mote than 30% of the ground floor of
any of fir, se buildings. In areas which do not direc~y facc onto the sh~FpLng stm~s),
freestaading residential buildings may be constructed. It is also anticipated that some
free-standing resi&n~al strucum:s will also be erected in Planning Area 1.
IH-31
Z
GSfirlTfT1. TITI'fi'ILt
~Friday June ], 1~9/e 12:10gm -- Page
1c_:Je:j694647'? P, B4
plaza
focal point
storefront az~as
Fdcstd~q orientation
MAIN STREET
CONCEPT
(DETAIL)
TEMECULA
R.~GIONAL ~
i(.C.D.C. 28250 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca 92591
FIGURE 12C
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 Pedestrian connection to adjacent
and sizes of units, and overall Temecula Regional Center uses and
architectural design. to nearby pedestrian syste
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 i
adjacent residential property to the i~.,
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.
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 front
principal access points on the site
L~le'~l par~ng (optional)
lane capacity (typ.)
Conceptual Internal Roadway
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 roadway 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 structures 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 areas 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-msidentiai 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, basketball courts, and weight rooms. These facilities may be
provided within buildings or, if provided outside, may be arranged in interior courtyards
or in wailed-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.
111-36
lFrictay June 3, 1994 11:15em -- Page
19ec36946477 P. ~
fx~-esmmiinguml6-famfiy
~f~ce[mstimtloml
uses GYP) with optjomd
rc~dcntia] on upper story
lrreestandin~- Resideadd Buildings & Vm-dcall7 Integrated Buildings
(Resideadd Over Commerdd/Offce Uses) with Recreational Facilities
4) parkin~ Desit, n
ljrnltecl on-street pnddng may be provided in Planning Area 1, pnrlic, d--!y along the
"ldnln Street." On-street padflag spaces are inlznded for people r,...;n_o ernmds and
them for longer than an hour cr two. Parking lots should be plaeed in the inUnlor of
individual parcels so that ~ appearance of the d~velopment from the ~ is of
buildin~ and ph,,~,, not parking lots (see Fi~ 12B). ~ inte'dor l~dr;,,~ lots ~
inL'nded for 'long term" parking.
The parking fa~!itles should not be the dominant visual image of the ~oject. Vns~
expanses of paving for parking, without the visual relief of landscaping, az highly
discottraged. Joint-porking arrangen~nts between comrne~al, office, and institutional
uses am cncotffagcd to minimiTe the nlz]zlbef Of patkjfig spaces tt~ir~ to
development and avoid prolfferafion of Zmrldng lots. In addition, completely separate
pnrldng az~as should be .~o-dcl~d for x~sidences.
Incentives for Innovative Design
Up to 300 mul~-f~mily dwellings can be emc2d in this p|nnni.g area to provid~ housing
opportunilies for employees of the various businesses w~thi. the Teniecula P, cgional
Center Specific Plan. Conversely, ltz plannexl corninertial uses will enable project
teddents to do their shopping by fool The mixture of rt, sidential and non-xtsidential land
uses are designed to decrease the traffic generated by project developmenL
111-37
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 1 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 mails, 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 limited 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
111-38
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 within 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 reason, 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/O~tions
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
111-39
LFriday June 3, 1<~/, 1:221ya -- Page zl
31_1+-83-1994 12:19 FROM T~B PLII',IqlI,[3
TO 1989G94647Z P. 82
of Tcmecula and, jf necessary, the Riverside Transit Agency. AddLil~onal uansit conidor
fight-of-way adjacent to Winchester Road on th~ western edge of thc planning area will
allow space for development of a mass wensit system (e.g., fight rail, etc.) should such
a system ever be consUucled.
9) VTI!,,. Center/M~n Street Dcvclopment Aw.a
b.
Tbc V;!l,,~e C.:enlz~/biain Street couccpt shall apply to between 10 m lJ acres wt~!n
Plauning Azea 1. Bloeks wfihin the lViain Street area shall be~by apublic8~.,~;et
grid system. The tem-{nder of the pl,nning area could be developed in a conventional
fashion purs, mn~ to maket demand if a continuation of lifts concept is determinexi tO be
infeasible by the City.
~ Use Development ~tawlmv~!s
Plc~s~ refer to Zone Orclinancc No.
__ in Section I~C of this Specific plan,
In compliance with the goals and policies of the City's C, cncral Plan, ViHnge Cem~
Overlay and Land Use Element Goa] 5 - Policies 5.5 tlxrough 5.10, it is important m
:, crea~ a quality environment which establishes a sense of place tinough cargfUl
consideration and Integration of the following design elements:
a) Pedes~iaa otie~mtlo~.
b) PW.~!estrla/l linkage..
c) Narrow streets and chiveways with pedestrian paseos and wide sidcwalks.
¸ d)
Features such as Paseas, sxr. ades, plazas, courtyards, squares, gldleries and outdoor
cares to encourage gathering.
i e)
Gnthering places such as pavilions, pnrks and bandstands. Festivals, cntcttnin~
ment, sUcct vendors, outdoor v~ts and other spe~ events should be
oncouragcd.
f) Incorporation of fotmtnin~ and water bodies.
g) Unique architectural and landscapc architectural fiicmcs for identity.
h) C.a~ful Paddug o~icntation.
Ill-40
~Friday June 3, 1~94 12:10pm -- Page 3[
31JN-83-1994 11;BcJ F:B~H T&B Pt_Fa, HING
TO lcJ~:J694E::>4"7'7 P. ~
2)
3)
4)
It is i.mlxramt to note thnt not all uses allowed in Planning Area I arc necessarily
expected to occur. For this re~son, some of the above design f.~n-'es may not he
ai>p, up, iatc nor economically feasible. For thi. rcasoR, only the concept of a "Main
Street* is discussed in depth above. Additional options for possible development in
plannln~ A/ca I Lm disc~scd in 5ccfio5 IV, ]Desigil Gttil:bllnes, in thi~ Spex~c HalL.
Access into Harming Area I will be provided fi'om Mm'gmim Road, Apricot Avenue ,ha
Winchester Rond.
(X) ,-i.or entry iz proposed through
~ ~m ~g ~ 1. ~ m~ ~g world
~m ~ ~ Ug PI~ ~ (~ ~m I2A).
· e ~t M~r~ ~ U~g ~0~ ~n
~ ~ ~ ~ l~on ~d ~g of min~ ~
Special toadway landscape tnmanents, as those dBpicted in Figures 14, 18, and 20,
Landscape Architectum.Guiddines (Sec. IV.E.) shall b~ provided along W'mche,~l~r Road,
Margatita Road and Apricot Av~u~.
Majm Fatty Monumentatioa as depicted in Figur~ 2.3, Landscape Architectural
Cmidelines, sh,ll be provided at Jig intersections of Winchester Road and Maxgarita Road,
and Margarita Road and Apricot Avenue, and along Margarita Road and W'mchester
Road.
Minor Entry Mowrmentation, as ck~picted in Figure :25, Landscspe Architectural
Cmidelines, shall be pwvided along Winchester Road, lVIsrgarita Rosd snd Apricot
Avenue.
Please lcfer to Sex. IV. for Specffic Design C-uldclincs and other mla~d design criteria.
Please refer to Se~. IILA. fo~ ~he following Development Phn, and Standards that apply
site-widz:
IKA. I - Specific Land Use Plan
fft. A.2 - Ciwulation Plan
HI-A.3 - Drainage Plan
IILA.4 - Wate~ and Sewer Plans
IHA.5 - ProjectPtmingPlaqx:
m4,6 - Grading Plan :
fIT_A2 - T~ndr, ca~g Plan
TII_A.8 - Mainten-nee Plan
11141
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM PHASING PLAN
R:\STAFFRFF\~63Sp. PC5 7/15/94 v~v 2~
DRAFT
ADDENDUM EIR
CAIVIPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
RECEIVED
dAN 0 8 1995
'CITY OF
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
F'mdings of the traffic analysks indicate that, at projected build-out of the three Kemper/'Bedford
projects substantial roadway improvements will be needed in the study area. It ks 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.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 acce,~. 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 ks 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 planned circulation system (including the Overland overpass, Data Street
overpass, and Winchester Interchange improvements) will be needed even if proposed
Kernper/Bedford development projects are not implemented.
Since it is more difficult to predict the rate and pattern of long-term (5 to 10 years) development
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 ks 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 ha 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 "g~ideline" only for City review 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
nee/is, 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 (Cempos Vetdes). 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 improvement 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 Ph~ing Plan presented herein
does not imply that the individual 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 ac~mmodate the traffic which
these projects will generate.
!
g
I
[
!
t
l
t
I
I
I
10
1
I
As part 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
Kemper/Bexlford 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 Margafita Road from Solana Way to Winchester
Road.
Ynez Road widening from project beundaty 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
Murrleta Hot Springs Road.
Projected 1994 to 1995 Implementation Period:
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Four-lane widening of M~,rgafita Road from Solana Way to Wi.nchester Road.
New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Margafita 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.
11
Proiected 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 from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road.
· Two:lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solaria 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 Jeffcroon 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 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 Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Widening of Marga~ta Road from Solana Way to Winch~ter Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period:
Six-lane and two-lane interim improvement on Date Street as depicted n Hgure 14.
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 Hgnre 14.
Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margarita Road, Ynez Road/Project Connector
Street, and Date Street/Ynez Road intersections.
New signal installations at Date Street/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margafita
Road/Project Connector Street intersections.
Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements.
12
Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road interchange 9verpas,s 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:
Construct/on of the Date Street overpass and installation of new signals on Date
Street at Madison Avenue and the Bnsine.~s Park access street.
New signal installation at Jackson Avenue/North Business Park acce~ street.
· Projected 1999-2000 Implementation Period:
Widening of Jacl~on 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 kearney Road from the new Margarita Road
alignment to the easterly project limits.
Solana 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 Muraleta Hot Springs Road.
New signal installations on Margarita Road at Winchester Road and Solaria .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 Kearney Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchang~ ramp improvements.
New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and Campos Verdes access
road.
It
il
13
I
!
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
Vetdes.
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. Findings 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 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
Kernper/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 redistributed
to interact with other local or regional development. _
14
In ter~ns 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"
asses.sments 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
manner.
Recommended mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kempor/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.
· Winchester Hills is asse.~ed 90 percent of the mitigation.
Temecula Regional Center is assess 10 percent of the Mitigation.
2. 16.6 percent or 1/6th implementation responsibility for the Date Street overpass.
· Winchester Hills is assessed 100 percent of the mitigation.
28 percent implementation resp~ns~ility for the Winchester Road interchange overpa.~s
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 porcent of the mitigation.
5 percent implementation responsibility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement
(Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road).
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed 60 percent of the mitigation.
· Campes 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 I-Iill~ is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16.6 percent implementation respons~ility for the Winchester Road widening from Margarita
Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 90 percent of the mitigation.
Winchester Hilis is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Vetdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
15
I
!
I
I
I
I
]
l
I
1
1
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.
WLnchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Vetdes is assessed 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 Hills is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
25 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane Ynez Road improvement
from its present terminus at Equity Drive to the Temecula/Murdeta 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 responsibility for the four-lane Date Street improvement
from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Winchester Hills 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.
· Campos Verdes is assessed 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 Margarita 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.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16
15. 10 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Solaria Way from Ynez
Road to Margafita Road.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Verdes ls 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 Hilis is assessexl with 70 percent of the mitigation.
17. Signal system implementation responsibilities would be as indication below.
a) 1~~percentresp~nsibi~ityf~r~n.sitesignaiswithintheWinchesterF...i~lspr~je~tin~~uding:
· Date Street signals at Business Park Access Street, Ynez Road, Lincoln, and
Margarita Road;
Ynez Road signals at Business Park Access Street, and Loop Road Connector Street
(near Equity Drive); and
· Margafita Road signal at southerly Loop Road Connector Street.
b) 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 Access.
c) 100 percent responsibility for C. ampos Verdes Acc, ess signals on Margafita Road at
General Keamey Road and Campos Verdes Access Street.
d) 50 percent responsibility for signals located at the following intersections:
· Margarita Road/Winchester Road;
· Margafita Road/Overland Drive; and
Ynez Road/Overland Drive.
25 percent responsibility for the signal installations at:
· Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and
· Margafita Road/Solana Way.
l
I
[
!
[
1
[
[
17
It is important to note that the implementation responsibilities detailed herein do not take into
account Kemper/Be, dforcls contributions 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 gg-12
districts. Credits should also be considered for fight-of-way dedications involving the recommended
street improvements.
In addition to the above listed mitigation measures, the indMdual Kemper/Bedford projects would
be respons~le for implementing all on-site project street improvements which have not already been
discussed. IndMdual 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 that the Winchester I-I. ills project, as part of its' mitigation program, has
reserved an easement along the 1-15 property frontage for a potential future collector-distributor
road/'mterchange system involving Date Street.
18
ia
:
!
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
A'FI'ACHMENT "A", MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR NO. 340
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7115194 vgw 24
ATFACIIMENT "A"
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 u~liTafion 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 mitigate the project's portion of cumulative traffic
impacts. These improvements and the project's implementation responsibility are listed below:
Improvement
1. Construction of lackson Avenue from the
Temecula/Murrieta City Limits to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road
2. Winchester Road interchange overpass
widening and currently planned ramp widenings
3. Overland Drive overpass improvement
(Jefferson 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%
6.
7.
8.
11
Winchester Road widening from Margarita
Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Solana Way to Winchester Road
Four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Four-lane Ynez Road improvement from its
present terminus at Equity Drive to the
Temecula/Murrieta City limits
Four-lane Overland Drive improvement from
Ynez Road to Margarita Road
Four-lane improvement of General Kearny
Road from Margarita Road to the easterly
Campos Verdes project boundary
General Kearny from easterly project limit to
Nicolas Road
16.94%
16.25%
5.25%
5.00%
20.00%
9.00%
12.75%
R:~TAFFP, i~T~.43PP.MF.~I 6t2/94 vgw 78
Improvement
12 Widening of Solana Way from Ynez Road to
Margarita Road
13 Widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from
Date Street to Canyon Drive
14 Project perimeter access signals on Winchester
Road, Overland Drive, the Palm Plaza access
and Costco Canter access
15
16
Implementation
Responsibility Assigned to
Temecula Regional Center
4.50%
1.50%
Signals at the intersections of: Margaxita
Road/Winchestex Road, Margarita
Road/Overland Drive and Ynez Road/Overland
Drive
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.
R:XS~STAFFRPTX~3PP.M~M 6F2/94 vlw 79
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Lbl I ER, APRIL 18, 1994
R:\STAFFRFr\263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 25
April 18, 1994
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Patricia B Novotney, Ed.D.
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Bos,e
Barbara Tooker
Dr Dav,d Eur,ch
Steve Jiannino
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Temecula 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
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.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School
District information as indicated in the 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.
{FACCOMITRCSPECpLAN}
31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecuia. 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. 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-E) 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.
Proiect Impacts/General Plan Relationship
The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation,
· Attached Dwellinq Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 * O. 17 students per unit
· Detached Dwellina 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 Tomecola 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 TerTlecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Tomecola. The City General
Plan adopted in October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts.
c. General 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,
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 Si~Tnificance After Mitioation
Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an
~nsignifioant level.
ITEM #10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 1994
Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes)
Environmental Impact Report No. 348
Change of Zone No. 5617
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
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;
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94-
approving Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No.
5617, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
KRDC, Inc.
T&B Planning Consultants
A Specific Plan consisting of: 308 single-family residential units,
19.8 acres of commercial\office\church 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 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.
South of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road
R-R (Rural Residential), A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size)
R:\STAFFRPT\iSP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and Ro
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:
Single-Family Residential
132.9 Acres
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 and June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meetings.
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 Residential, Low Medium Density, and Open
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
PLANNING DENSITY DWELLING
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
2
12.0
13.7
7
1
2.3 308
10.7
10.8
13.0
60.2
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 Sanderling Way, Starling Street or both. Staff has
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 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.
Landscaoe Develooment 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 Vetdes 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 for the project implementation responsibility for regional facilities.
m
That this Specific Plan be required to support either supplemental bond sales or district
restructuring and supplemental bond sales which provide for certain regional facilities
listed in the EIR.
m
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.
m
A typical section be added to the Specific Plan for the primary onsite circulation
road(s),
School Mitiaation
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
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
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 4
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 DETERMINATION
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.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As a result of changesto the conditions of approval, the Mitigation Monitoring Program will
need to be updated prior to the city Council approval. A condition of approval has been added
which will ensure that the Mitigation Monitoring Program accurately reflects the new
conditions of approval.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.IPC5 7115/94 vgw 5
SUMMARY\CONCLUSIONS
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan has been revised to address resident, staff, and Commission
concerns relative to the project. Concerns relative to buffering have been addressed through
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 Addendure 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
SDecific 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, 1 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 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.
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.
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 Impact Report
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 27
A. Figure IV - 26A - Meadowview Buffer Exhibit
5. Revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan - Summary of Changes - Blue Page 28
6. First Addendure to EIR - Blue Page 29
7. Second Addendure to EIR - Blue Page 30
8. Responses to Public Comments - Blue Page 31
9. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - Blue Page 32
10. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 33
11. Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan - Blue Page 34
12. Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, April 18, 1994 - Blue Page 35
13. Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, June 29, 1994 - Blue Page 36
14. Meadowview Letter of Support - Blue Page 37
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~ISP.PC5 7/15/94 v~' ~
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 SINGLE-FAMII.Y RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 19.8 ACRES
OF COMM~-RCIAL\OFFICE\CHURCH USES, A 5.8 ACRE DETENTION
BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE ROADWAYS, DEVI~.IID PMENT PLANS AND
STANDARDS, PLANNING AREA DEVELOP/VlF. NT STANDARDS,
DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ZONING ORDINANCE; APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617 TO CHANGE ~ ZONING FROM R-R
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY AGRICULTURAL, 20
ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP (SPECWIC PLAN); PROJECT IS
LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD.
WItF. REAS, KRDC, 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;
WHEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WItE. REAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on July 18, 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, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 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 foliowing 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.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 9
2. Specific Plan No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses which are
residential and commercial. The Specific Plan provides for I\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 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, WildlifeXVegetation, 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 f'mdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein 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, WildlifeXVegetation, 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 wffi 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 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.
6. Said f'mdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw q 0
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the said
applications which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts 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 ~ that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Wildlife
and Vegetation, Circulation and Utilities and Service for which Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations have been included within the final FAR. Subsequent to
preparation of the FAR two addenda were prepared for the project. The furst, analyzed new
technical information on traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding which resulted in additional
mitigation measures which were incorporated into the FF_iR. The second addendure was
prepared to analyze the impacts of the a revision in the specific plan I.and 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 ~, 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 hemto.
R:\STAFFRPTX1SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw I I
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
C~
I HEREBY 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 18th day of July
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:~STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7/15194 vgw ] 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7t15/94 vgw 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTWYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 348 ALONG WITH ITS TWO SUBSEQUENT ADDENDA,
ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING T~E MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM ON PROPERTY 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.
WItEREAS, Douglas Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report
No. 348 in accordance with the City of Temecula and State CI~QA Guidelines;
ItrltEREAS, said FiR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local hw;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said FIR on July 18, 1994, at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended Certification of the said FiR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecu~a Planning Commission in recommending
Certification of the proposed FFiR, makes the following f'mdings, 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:\STAFFRPT\iSP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 14
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1994.
STEVEhi J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY 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 18th day of July,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPTXlSP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 'l [5
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115194 vg, w 16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes)
Project Description:
A Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential
units, 19.8 acres of commercial\office\church 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
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. I, 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. PC5 7115194 vgw 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 (8¼" 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:\STAFFRPTXlSP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 18
15. Prior to City Council approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be updated to
reflect all current conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
16.
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.
17.
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.
t8.
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.
19. 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
20,
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.
21.
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.
22.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the non residential (commercial and offices)
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.
R:\STAFFPJPT\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 v~w 19
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.
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.
28.
All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements.
29.
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). If required, additional rights-of-way dedications
associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 20
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic
studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section IIh 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 Campos 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 traffic signals at the phase one accesses from Margarita Road and North General
Kearny Road, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to
subsequent development applications shall be completed prior to issuance of any
occupancy,
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the
200th equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), The improvements shall be constructed prior to
issuance of occupancy for the 200th EDU.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road, along the entire frontage,
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.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Road, from
Solana Way to southerly project boundary.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond
for the improvements to North General Kearny Road, from Margarita Road to easterly
project limit in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan. 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.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is
responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The
Developer shall construct the traffic signals, as required, based on traffic signal
warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications at the following
intersections:
Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal)
R:\STAFFRFF\lSp. PC5 7/15t94 vgw
Drainage
36.
37,
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Water
44.
45.
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
Margarita Road and Campos Verdes Lane
North General Kearny Road and Camino Campos Verdes
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 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.
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.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
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.
and Sewer
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.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 22
46.
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.
47.
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
Vetdes Specific Plan development.
Grading
48.
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.
49.
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.
50.
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.
51.
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.
52.
Each subsequent applic.ation 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.
53. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
54,
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.
55. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
56.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
57.
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.
58.
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.
59.
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.
60.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing
61.
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.
62.
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:
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7/15194 vgw 24
General Requirements
63.
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.
64.
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.
65.
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.
66.
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.
67.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual
property owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
68.
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.
69.
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
70.
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.
71.
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.
72.
All parks, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians identified as TCSD
maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 25
73.
Landscape construction drawings for all 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
74.
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
75.
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.
76.
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:\STAFFRPT\ISP.IPC5 7/15/°A vgw 26
ATTACHMENT N0.4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRFI'XISP. PC5 7115194 vg'w 27
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - SP NO. I (CAMPOS VERDES), EIR NO. 348, CZ NO. 5617
EXHIBIT - A FIGURE IV - 26A MEADOWVIEW BUFFER EXHIBIT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE ~ JUNE 6, 1994
R:\STAFFRPTHSP.PC3 6/2/94 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
REVISED CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 28
I iI~ T& B P1Ltnnin~ Consultant>
May 18, 1994
RECEIVED
MAY 19
Ans'd ............
JN 168-044
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
Planning Department
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RIg: CHANGES TO CAMPOS VERDES SPECWIC 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 III-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 Ubnoske
· 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 Kearny Road, have been
increased from 4.6 acres to 7.8 acres. In addition, all or portions of the
commercial/office 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/right-out only access available from
Margarita Road.
Elementary School Site. A 10.7 acre (gross) elementary school site is proposed
adjacent to North General Kearny 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 III-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 Sande~ing 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.
r[~ Debbie Ubnoske
· CITY OF TEMECULA
May 18, 1994
· Page 3
HI. OPEN SPACE]RECREATION AND LANDSCAPING PLAN CHANGES
Section III.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 Planning Area 1, a 2.0-acre open space/paseo buffer is
planned in Planning 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
commercial/office uses. "The detention basin, although it will serve a detention
function during winter storms, will contain a ruffed-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 turf 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. O-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."
IV. PROJECT PHASING PLANS
The Development Phasing Plan for Campos Verdes, as depicted in Table II on page
111-36, 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
commercial/office and commercial uses will be constructed in Phase II.
DebbieUbnoske
· iCITY OF TEMECULA
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 III-40 through III-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
illustration.
VI. ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES
The Zoning Ordinance on pages Ill-66 through III-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 III-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
Barry Bumell
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
FIRST ADDENDUM TO EIR
UNDER SEPARATE CO VER
R:\STAFFRFr\ISP. PC5 7/15/94 vgw 29
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
SECOND ADDENDUM TO EIR
R:\STAFFRFr\ISP. PC5 7/15194 vgw ~0
ADDENDUM EIR
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
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, Inc.
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
June, 1994
TABt ,E OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Purpose
A. Background .......................................... 1
B. Purpose ............................................. 1
C. Summary Analysis ..................................... 3
II.
Project Description
A. Objectives ............................................ 5
B. "Revised" Project Plan ................................... 5
C. "Original" Project Plan .................................. 9
D. Comparative Analysis .................................. 12
III. Environmental Analysis
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
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
W~dllfeNegetation .................................... 30
Energy Resources ..................................... 32
Scenic Highways ...................................... 33
Cultural and Scientific Resources ......................... 34
Circulation .......................................... 36
Utilities and Services .................................. 42
Light and Glare ...................................... 44
Disaster Preparedness .................................. 45
Mandatory CEQA Topics
A. Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................. 46
B. Summary of Unavoidohle Adverse Impacts .................. 46
C. Alternatives to the Proposed 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 Valley Unified School District
LIST OF FIGURES
"Revised" Project Land Use Plan ................................ 7
"Original" Project Land Use Plan .............................. 10
LIST OF TABLES
1. Comparative Analysis of Impacts and Mitigations ................... 3
2. "Revised" Project Land Use Summary ............................ 6
3. Development Phasing Plan .................................... 9
4. "Original" Project Land Use Summary ........................... 11
5. Land Use Comparative Summary .............................. 13
6. Air Quality Analysis ........................................ 25
7. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan ....... 38
8. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Original" 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
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PlAN
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
A. Backaround
The Csmpos Verdes Spedtic 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 fwst 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 Campos Verdes Specffic 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.
P~ose
Most recently, revisions were made to the land use plan for the proposed
Campos Verdes Specific Plan which reduce the number of proposed 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 Addendure 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 Addendure to the Campos Verdes Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15164
of the State CEQA Guidelines which states:
(a)
The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an
Addendum to an EIR if:
1
(1)
None of the conditions descn~ed 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
Addendum do not raise important new issues
about the significant effects on the
environment.
(b)
An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be
included in or attached to the Final EIR.
(c)
The decision-msl~iug body shall consider the Addendum
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 Specific Plan.
This Addendum to the Csmpos 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 Addendum 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, including economic, environmental and social
factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for
development.
2
C. SnmmarV Analysis
The following tabular summary hsts the environmental issues discussed within
both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and this Addendure to the Draft EIR.
This summary table indicates which environmental issues experienced a change in
project-related impacts and/or the provision of additional mitigation measures beyond
those contained 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 Addendum.
TABI ,E 1
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Environmental Issue
Changes in
Proiect Imnacts
Additional
Miti2ation 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. WildlifeNegetation*
L. Energy Resources
M. Scenic Highways
N. Cultural and Scientific Resources
0. 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 Csmpos
Verdes Specific Plan.
The nature and extent of the changes in project impacts and additional
mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section III, Enviromental Analysis of
this Addendum to the Draft EIR. None of the 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 Csmpos Verdes Draft
3
Environmental Impact Report. Significant impacts as a result of development of the
"Revised" C~mpos Verdes Specffic Plan remain in the areas of Seismic Safety, Noise,
Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, WildlifeNegetation, Circulation and Utilities
and Services (libraries).
4
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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 (Addendum 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 deta~ed discussion of the recently-
revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan (to be referred to as the "Revised" Campos
Verdes Specffic 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 Specific 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" Cnmpos 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" Proiect 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/church 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
TABI.E 2
"REVISED" PROJECT 1AND 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 ~
Roads
Subtotal
PROJECT
Notes
Planning Area
Density DwelLing
(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
2
12.0
13.7
10.7
2.3 308
10.8
13.0
60.2
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 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 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.
6
The proposed land uses within the Specific Plan include:
Low Density Residential: Approximately 18 dwelling units will be developed on 16
acres at a density of 1.1 dwelling units per acre. Those single family detached homes
will be located in Planning Area 9 adjacent to the off-site residential uses.
Low Medium Density Residential: The remaining residential development within the
C~mpos 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.
Commercial/Office and Detention Basin: Planning Area 4 will be developed with 12.0
acres of commercial property along Margarita and Winchester Roads. PInning Area
2 (13.7 acres total) will be developed with a detention basin on 5.9 acres;
commercial/office uses wffi 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 facility 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 contain softball/soccer 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 family dwellings may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots.
Roads: Readways totalhng 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.I., Specific Land Use Plan of the Campos 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 Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
The "Revised" Campos 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
AYea
Acres
Units
Phase I
Years 1 and 2
Subtotal
- Park
- Elementary School ~
- Low Medium Residential
- Low Medium Residential
- Low Medium Residential
i 10.8 0
7 10.7 0
3 12.0 76
5 16.5 86
6 12.3 72
62.3 234
Phase II
Years 3 to 5 - Low Residential 9 16.0
- Low Medium Residential 8 15.9
- Commercial/Office/
Church and Drainage 2
- Commercial
Subtotal
18
56
2 13.7 0
4 12.0 0
57.6 74
Project 13.0
Roadways
PROJECT 132.9
TOTAL
308
Notes
~ Phasing of the elementary school will nitimately be determined by the Temecula
Valley Unified School District. The District may elect to bu~d the school in Phase II,
if ever. If a school is not constructed on this site, then a maximum of 64 single family
dwelling may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots.
2 The detention basin in PInning Area 2 may be developed earlier depending upon
the phasing of the a~acent 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 37.9 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
f
..<
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
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
6.4 850
13.5
10.4
13.5
9.5
46.9
132.9
Notes
~ 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 shall 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 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.
11
Comparative Analysis
Provided below is both a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the
"Revised" and "Original" 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 Compos Verdes Specific Plan Draft EIR. The following list represents the primary
elements of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan which have changed since
circulation of the Draft EIR. These revisions are currently reflected within the
"Revised" Project Plan.
1. The proposed maximum dwelling unit total for the Campos 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" Campes 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) will be applied toward City park
requirements. The portions of Planning Areas 2 and 4 contain areas which will 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 identified within Land Use
Development Standard 18 on page III-8 of the Campos 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 maximum of 64 dwelling units would be constructed at this location.
This stipulation of conversion to residential use of this area remains within the
"R~visod" Specific Plan.
The additional environmental impacts associated with these project revisions are
discussed in detail in the following Section III., Environmental Analysis.
TABLE 5
LAND USE COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
Land Use
Designation
Residential
"Revised" Land Use Plan
Acres Dwelling
Units
"Original" LandUse Plan
Acres Dwelling
Units
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/
Office/Church
and Detention
Basin
13.7 10.4
Park 10.8 13.5
Elementary
School
10.7
Roads 13.0 9.5
PROJECT
TOTAL
132.9 308 132.9 850
13
III. 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 Addendure 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-Identffied 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 Campos Verdes Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report. Both the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring
Program wffi be the subject of consideration and certification by the City of Temecula
concurrent with final action on the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
SEISMIC SAFETY
Existing Conditions
The site lies 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 (W~domar 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 Alqnist-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. Based 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 significant.
The proposed project lies within a dam inundation area and may be subject to
seismically induced flooding from a dam failure at Skinner Reservoir. The project site
is located approximately six miles downstream of Skinner Reservoir within close
proximity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Skinner Reservoir is utili~.ed for domestic water
storage, not for flood control purposes. According to the Dam Break and Floodway
Inundation Study for Domenigohi Valley Reservoir West Dam and Skinner Reservoir
Dam, Riverside County (prepared by the Office of Hydrological Studies, Department
of Civil Engineering, Cal State University, Sacramento, dated September 15, 1993),
the project site will not be inundated due to a breach of the Domenigoni 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
Alqulst-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 will 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 collapse of on-site
structures.
A portion of the Csmpos 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.
5
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 wffi remain unchanged from
those associated with the "Original" project plan.
15
4. Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
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 Geomorphic Province east of the Santa Aria Mountains. The
Peninsular Ranges extend southward from the Los Angeles Basin through Baja
California, and are characterized by large Mesozoic Age intrusive rock masses flanked
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. Artfficiai 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, topsoil, 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 fill, 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 ~l 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 surficiai stability. To alleviate this impact, it is recommended that slopes be
properly compacted and all cut and fill slopes be planted with erosion resistant
vegetation or other protective devices immediately after grading.
17
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The geotechnicsl feasibility of development of the "Revised" Csmpos Verdes Specific
Plan, given adherence to current and future geotechnical recommendations, remains
unchanged. The "Revised" project plan maintains the same smount of area (132.9
acres) being disrupted by grading as the "Original" project plan.
Development of the "Revised" Cnmpos 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
relocuted, if necessary, to the Temecula Regional Center site to the west. The
potential for erosion-related impacts remain unchsnged 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 EROSIONANDBLOWSAND
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
grading) will generate fugitive dust. 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 soft
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 will 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 mount 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 confiuence 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-nnmed 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 Road is approximately 1,650 acres.
Off-site to the southwest, the site discharges under Ynez Road through an existing
double 10 foot X 5 foot Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) under Ynez Road, 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 Campos 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 Road. 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 Csmpos 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 Road. 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 (Planning Area 1) in order to reduce the flow rate experienced by
the Ynez Road 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 fsdlities 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 Channel.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific 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
Vetdes Specffic 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 unit). The increase of
3.5 acres of on-site roads creates 152,460 square feet of additional impervious surface.
Therefore, the "Revised" Specific 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" Specific 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 w~l 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
E~isting Conditions
Data provided in the Draft EIR indicates that a major noise corridor exists along
Interstate 15. Noise levels directly adjacent to Interstate 15 exceed 70 CNEL. Other
roadways in the vicinity 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 centerline 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 will
alter projected noise levels in the surrounding areas. Due to future development
which has already been approved there will 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, Dias Road, Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, Margarita Road, Nicolas
Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road and Solana Way will 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 cumulative
development upon this roadway segment results in an increase of 12.8 dB over the
existing noise levels. This increase is considered a signffi~t off-site noise impact.
22
Limited portions of the project site proposed for residential use may experience traffic
noise levels greater thau 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Specifically,
residential lots along General Kearny and Margarita Read may experience noise levels
over 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Residential areas along Winchester
Read and proposed commercial/office uses adjacent 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
Sinco 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
Addendum to the Draft EIR, a total of 12,266 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" Campos
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 traffic originating outside the project boundaries. These regional
(or cumulative) noise impacts associated with the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific
Plan remain as a signfficant impact to off-site areas and will stiff 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
Existing Conditions
The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The dimate of the
basin is classified as Mediterranean, characterized by a pattern of cool, wet winters
and warm, dry summers. State standards for oxidants and particulates are exceeded
at the Perris 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 pollutants will
be emitted by construction equ/pment and dust wffi 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 C~mpos 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 fill
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 will 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".
24
Analysis of Changes in Project ~mpacts
The "Revised" CRmpos Verdes Spec'Lf~c Plan is expected to involve a similar amount
of landform alteration as the "Original" Specific Plan. A sjm{lar 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 in the way of
changes to these short-term sir 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 "Original" CAmpos
Verdes Specific Plan. This results in a reduced amount of pellutants 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 utjliv. e the same
pollutant generation factors as used in the air quality analyses of the "Original"
project plan within the Draft EIR.
TABI,E 6
AIR QUALITY 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" Csmpos 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" Csmpos
Verdes Specific Plan remains as a significant 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.
25
G. WATER QUALITY
E~l=ting Conditions
The project lies entirely within the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater area. 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 area.
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-IdentLfied 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 mounts 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 wffi 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
Existing 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 fadlities 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 portion 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 unlikely. However,
due to the past agricultural use of the site, there remains the potential for near
surface soil centsmluation 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.
5
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The potential for near surface soil contamination due to residues from pesticide use
associated with prior agricultural activities on-site will remain unchanged from the
"Original" to the "Revised" project plans. The increase in the amount of on-site
cemmerciai uses from 18.1 to 19.8 acres may result in an increased potential for the
establishment 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 Campos Verdes site are pasture crops including
barley and oats. The project site contains Class I and Class II soils 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 will remove an estimated 132.9
acres of pasture crops, contributing to the decline of such uses in Riverside County.
Project implementation will resttit in urban development on "Local Important
Farmland" per the County Agricultural Resources Map. In addition, development will
occur on soils that are classified as "Prime" (soil capability Classes I and II) per the
Soil 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. contain soils classified as "Prime" per the Soil Survey of
Western Riverside Area. This impact is identical to Agriculture-related impacts
associated with the "Original" Specific Plan. This loss of prime agricultural land
remains 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 CAmpos Verdes project.
Development of the site with the uses proposed will preclude future use of the site for
dryland agriculture and will 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 "Spedtic Plan". Little in the way of land use conflicts with
adjacent land uses are anticipated to result as a consequence of development of the
Campos Verdes Specffic Plan.
Analysis of Changes in 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" Specific Plan are anticipated.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
29
K. WH ,r}LIFENEGETATION
Existing Conditions
One naturalized biotic comm.nity, introduced grassland, is represented on-site. This
community derives its name from the predominance 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 CAlifornia today,
particularly in the Western Riverside County area.
Due to their altered conditions, large, open expanses 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
mammals 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 Wildlife Service, the Stephen's kangaroo rat.
Based on field observations, the site is not believed 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 raptorial 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 suitable hunting habitat
(generally open brushland and grassland).
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Construction activities will result in the removal of physical habitats through cut, fill
and other grading activities necessary for roads, building pads, utilities, fuel
modification and ~o~d control. The fLrst order impacts of habitat loss will be the
direct loss of vegetation and the destruction of less mobile wildllfe 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
wilcllife 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 ofurban landuses maybe collectively termed"harassment". Harassment
is defined as those activities of man and his domestic animals which increase the
physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction
in wildlife populations. The most common form 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 children which are
unnatural predators and competitors for wiMlife.
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 streambeds (or "blue-line streams") on-site, regardless of whether they
contain riparian vegetation or sensitive faunal species, wffi be governed by the
California Department of Fish and Game (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 wildlife 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) wildlife 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 faunai resources.
No rare or endangered plants or animal species are expected to be impacted by either
the "Revised" or "Original" project plans.
5
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those centained
in the Draft EIR.
31
L. ENERGY RESOURCES
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" Csmpos 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.
e
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" Campos 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 centsins a 24 foot Landscape
Development Zone and a 25 foot transportation corridor easement along State
Highway 79.
The project site does not centaln 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 Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos 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
uses 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
Existing 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 primar~y composed of recent alluvium with exposures of the Pauba
Formation. The Pauba Formation is exposed mainly along stream channels, gullies
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-Identified 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 discovery, 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 area.
In response to Draft EIR comments received from the San Bernardino County
Museum, an updated Palleontelogical Assessment (dated December 7, 1992) was
34
performed on the Csmpos Verdes site by the firm of RMW Paleo Associates. The
complete text of this Assessment is included as Attachment 1 to the Response to
comments package within the Campos Verdes Final EIR. This revised Paleontological
Assessment includes: 1) an assessment of existing paleontologic resources unearthed
at the site. This assessment was based upon the original field surveys (performed in
November, 1988) and new findings resulting from the site's recent use as a borrow
areas; 2) given this additionnl information concerning existing resources, an
assessment of potential project impacts; and 3) an updated Mitigation Program 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 Paleontelogical Assessment provides the
City of Temecula with an updated assessment of paleontelogical resources, the result
of which are included in the Responses to Comments package within the Campes
Verdes Final EIR.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campes 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 As such, potential impacts to cultural and scientffic 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 centalned
in the Draft EIR.
35
O. CIRCULATION
Ex-lszting Conditions
The Csmpos Verdes project site lies adjacent to and is immediately served by
Winchester and Margarita Reads to the north and west of the site, respectively, within
the City of Temecula. The southern pertion of the project site is divided by General
Kearny Read.
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 except for the following: Winchester Read between
Margarita Read and Murrieta Hot Springs Read (Level of Service D); Ynez Read
between the Town Center Drive and Solana Way (Level of Service D) ; and Winchester
Read between Jefferson Avenue and 1-15 (Level of Senrice 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/Jefferson Avenue (Level of Service D during AM and PM peak
hours); Winchester Read/Ynez Read (Borderline Level of Service C/D during PM peak
hour); Rancho California Road/I-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 senrice 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" Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan and other major development projects. Major
intersections expected to provide direct access to the Csmpos Verdes project along
Margarita Read 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 Read/General
Kearny Road intersection would operate at a Level of Senrice "B" with the Campos
Verdes project but without the Regional Center. The five intersections along General
Kearny Read would operate at a Level of Service "A" during peak periods at ultimate
project development.
36
Intersections along Campos Verdes Loop Read 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 Campes 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" Campes 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 Addendum to the Draft EIR. In
addition to the project revisions previously noted within this Addendure 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" Csmpes Verdes Specific Plan and Table
8, Vehicle Trip Generation, "Original" Csmpos 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" Campes Verdes Specific 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 dally period.
According to the Traffic Engineer, the reduction in the intensity of proposed land uses
within the "Revised" C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan and the resultant reductions in
project traffic as noted above wffi more than compensate for the closure of Starling
Street and Sanderling Way.
37
TABLE 7
VEHICLE 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
Commercial 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
Family Residential
Area 7/ 428 150 43
Elementary
School
Area 8/Single 560 44 41
Family Residential
Area 9/Single 180 14 13
FRmi]y Residential
Project Total 12,268 875 911
Trip distribution for the "Revised" project proposal would not vary significantly from
that associated with the "Original" 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 Nicolas Read.
38
TABLF, 8
VEHICL~ TRIP GENERATION
"ORIGINAL" CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
Plann/ng Area/ Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use
Area 2/ 1,860 145 146
Commercial Office
Area 3/Multi 2,495 168 177
Family Residential
Area 4/ 8,000 409 574
Neighborhood
Retail Center
Area 5/Multi 1,769 122 134
Fsmily Residential
Area 6/Single 1,410 110 103
Family Residential
Area 7/Single 650 43 45
Family Residential
Project Total 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 seg~nents
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 hnks
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 lists the Levels of Service on these roadway segments
and intersections resulting from development of the "Revised" project plan.
39
TABL!~. 9
COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Roadway Segment
Winchester Road
(between 1-15 and Ynez
Rd.)
Ynez Road (between
Winchester Rd. 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 DfE
D/D D/D
F/D F/D
D/I) 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
assorated with the "Original" project plan.
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 represent a small portion of the total project
traffic on these roadways.
4O
Revisions to the proposed project land use will restfit in lower project-related traffic
volumes 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 Road to its ultimate
cross-section between Margarita Road and Cnmluo Campos Verdes prior to occupation
of Plantring Areas 3 and 7 of Campos Verdes Phase I; b) Install an interim signal on
Margarita Road at Solana Way prior to 50% occupation of C~mpos Verdes Phase I;
and c) Complete construction of Margarita Road as a 4-lane Arterial section prior to
occupation of Planning Areas 2 and 4 of Campos Verdes Phase II.
These guidelines shotrid be reviewed in more detail at the time that building permits
are processed for the project. Roadway Capacity Utilization values (fair share
implementation responsibility assessments) identified in the earlier Traffic Studies for
other area roadway improvements should be factored by 75.8% to adjust for the
reduction in Cnmpos 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 signfficant 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. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
1. Existing Conditions
The proposed project is serviced by the utility agencies noted in Table 10, Utility
Agencies.
TABI,E 10
UTILITY AGENCIES
Service
Water
Sewer
Fire
Police
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 Temeculs, Police Department
Temecula Valley Unified School
District
City of Temecula
Southern California 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
"Original" Specffic 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 Unffied School District
"Revised" Specific 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 (f~re, 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 signfficant
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 Specific Plan as
compared to the "Original" project plan. In spite of these decreases, a signfficant
impact to library services remain 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.
43
LIGHT AND GLARE
EYiating 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 a~res of commercial and
commercial/office space within the "Original" Campes Verdes Specific Plan will 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 "skyglow", 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 will 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
Existing 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 coordinating the various agencies to assure
preparedness and recovery of such an event.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Potential impacts to the "Original" CRmpos 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 wffi generate fewer project residents (798
persons) as compared to the "Original" Specific 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
Cumulative Impact Analysis
The Cumulative Impact Analysis as contained on pages V-160 through V-169 of the
Campos Verdes Draft EIR would remnin unchanged with implementation of the
"Revised" C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan.
Summllry of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
As noted in Section I.C., Summary AnalySiS 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, WildlifeNegetation, Circulation and Utilities
and Services (libraries) for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been
prepared. Project revisions as reflected within the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific
Plan have resulted in significant reductions in impacts in the impact areas of flooding,
fwe services, sheriff services, schools and utilities. The project-related impacts in
these areas were considered signfficant in the CAmpes Verdes Draft EIR but with
implementation of the "Revised" Campes Verdes Specffic 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 Campos Verdes Draft EIR.
Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect
This discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project as contained on pages V-173
through V-195 of the Campos Verdes Draft EIR presents several alternatives to the
proposed project. The range of alternatives selected would stffi apply to the "Revised"
Campos Verdes Specffic Plan. The quantified comparisons of impact of each
alternative with the "Original" Specific Plan as contained in the Draft EIR have been
revised and are reflected in the Findings of Fact which will become part of the Final
EIR.
It should be acknowledged that the Reduced Density Alternatives No. i and 2 within
the Draft F, IR 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 similar housing is available elsewhere
within the City of Temecula and adjoining areas.
46
Growth Inducinff Impacts. the Relationship Between Local Short-
Term Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance of
Productivity. and Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Energy
SUDD!ieS and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented
The discussion of growth inducing impacts, long-term productivity, and irretrievable
commitments of resources as contained on pages V-196 through V-198 of the Draft
EIR would remain unchanged with implementation of the "Revised" Campos Verdes
Specific Plan.
47
ATTACHMENT A
SI, rPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS · PLANNERS
3600 LIME STREET · SUITE 226 · RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 · (909) 27443566 · FAX (909) 274-9220
April 30, 1994
Mr. Barry Burnell
Principal
Turrini & Brink
3242 Halladay Street, Suite 100
Santa Ana, California 92705
IECEIVED
MAY 2 1994
ClTYOI=TEMECULA
ENGINEERING OEPARTT~IENT
Re: Campos Verdea 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 MOINEB. IA · FALLS CHURCH. VA
HONG KONG · HOUSTON, TX · KNOXVILLE, TN · LEXINGTON, KY · LONDON. ENGLAND * LOS ANGELES, CA · MIAMI, ~L · NEENAH. Wr
NEW HAVEN. CT · OAKLAND, CA ° ORLANDO. FL · PR'/SBURGH, PA° PORTSMOUTH, NH · PROVIDENCE. RI · RALEIGH. NC · RICHMOND. VA
RIVERSIDE. CA · ROBELLE, IL · BAN FRANCISCO, CA ° SAN JOSE. CA · SINGAPORE · TAMPA, FL ° TORONTO. CANADA ° WASHINGTON, DC
EMPLOYeE-OWNED COMPANY
Mr. Barry Burnell
Campos Verdes Modifications
April 30, 1994
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 l-15and 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
Aprit 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. Qn 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 Iand 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 Improvements
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 Oriqinal Proiect
With Current Project
· 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 Verdes Phase I.
· Install interim signal on Margarita Road at Solaria 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 addendure 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
D z ~ z o
ATTACHMENT B
CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE TEMECULA V,~LLF, y
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Patricia B. Novomey, Ed.D.
APR 2 1
Ans'd..- ..........
BOARD 0~ EDUCATION
Ros~e Vanoernaak
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: Campoe 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 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 Temecuia Valley Unified School District:
# of students per dwelling unit
Elementary School: .39
Middle School: .24
High School: ~
Total .88
The number of new students is determined by muhiplying the new dwelling units by these 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.
i ~ ,
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 / Temecula, 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
a. Existing Conditions
The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District ITVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The
District currently operates six elementary (grades K-E) 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 Irnnacts/General Plan Relationship
The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation.
· Attached Dwellinq 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 Dwellina Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.39; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 studants 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
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
this project will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The Campos Verdes project 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. General Plan Iml)/ementation Proqrarn
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 Mitklation
Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an
~nsignificant level.
0:~
C.)>-o~
uJ<,-
C)"r
>-
.jZ~
-JWn
<:sO
.JO<
E~
oEn-
{.-.~_~
LU
C)
CAMPOS VERDES
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN
2/? i'~.~.-
FI
P.A. 2
COMMERCIAU
OFFICE/
DETENTION
10.4AC
P.A. 6
2.6 AC
MEDIUM OENSITY
MEDIUM
CAMPOSVERDES
P.A.B
35,9 AC
169DU
/
/ ~
P.A. 4 ~ P.A 3
MULTI-FAMILY !t SCHOOL*
17.4 AC %, 11.1 AC
348 DU ~
MEADOWVIEW
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
UNDER SEPARATE CO VER
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw ~2
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348
(STATE CLE~aRINGHOUSE NUMBER 89020139)
FOR THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
The City of Temecula (the "City") hereby certifies the Campos Verdes Specific
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 89020139,
which consists of the Draft EIR, a Response to Comments package and an Addendum
EIR (collectively referred to as the "Final EIR" or "FEIR"), and finds that it has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resource Code 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 officials 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 Code as follows:
BACKGROUND
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan (the "proposed project") was originally
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 Changes (5181 and 5188), and the ~ing
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
Villages as described below:
CamDos 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 72 1 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 uses which were intended to generally
serve the needs of employees working within or customers utilizing the proposed
Business Park.
Ro2ional Center - This area encompassed 193 acres located immediately south
of Winchester Road and east of Ynez Road. The msjority 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
wss, 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 California Commerce Center was split into four
separate projects which included: the Campos Verdes Specific Plan (the "proposed
project") located east of Margarita Road and north of General Kearny Road; the
Winchester Hffis Specific Plan located east of and adjacent to Interstate 15, extending
east to Margarita Road on the north side of Winchester Road; 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 Road 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 apphcations have been submitted for
Winchester Meadows.
Kemper Real Estate Management Company (the "Applicant") proposes the 132.9
acre Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. i 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 apphcations for the proposed project were ~ed with
the County of Riverside. The unincorporated area in which the proposed project is
located became part of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. 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 Temecula Regional
Center are being processed concurrently through the City of Temecula. These three
projects, in total, are referred to as the "Urban Core" projects.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An Initial Study for Campos Verdes was prepared by the County of Riverside
on March 12, 1990, which identified potential environmental impacts attributable to
the proposed project. These potential impacts include: Landform and Topography;
Historical Land Use; Geology and Seismidty; Hydrology; Flooding 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, schd 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 identffied the
necessity to analyze Project Alternatives and provide a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. 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 FF, IR 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 pubhc 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 Gnidehnes) 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
centalned therein as well as responses to the City's comments are contained within
an Addendure EIR which is also part of the FEIR. A second Addendure 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 FEIR. 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 signfficant 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
centalns 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 centalns a copy of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the proposed project.
4
SECTION 1
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The FEIR identified and discussed significant effects which wffi 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 significant impacts in the areas of noise, climate and air quality, and
agriculture, as identified 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 unavoidable 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 complimentary land uses (commercial,
office, church, elementary school and residential) within a single mi~ed use project
thereby reducing traffic, noise and air quality impacts associated with automob~e 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 adjacent 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 adjacent 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 and roadways. The proposed project
5
implements the City's Master Plan of Highways.
7. Drainage facilities (i.e. a detention basin) will 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 Csmpos Verdes Specific
Plan.
The City of Temecula has determined that these mitigation measures and
conditions of approval wffi result in a substantial mitigation of the following effects
and that these effects are not considered significant 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.
Slones 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 ~l
will be required. With appropriate permits, the balance of the earthwork will be
relocated on the adjacent Temecula Regional Center site. Cut and ~l slopes are
anticipated to be stable at ratios of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter to heights of ten
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 identffied impact.
Potential Impact: Slope erosion on-site is a significant concern regarding sur~cial
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 identified impact.
7
]~oodin;
Potential Ironact: 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 soils during project grading.
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 19 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impacts.
Potential Imnact: The development phase of the project will create impermeable on-
site surfaces, thereby increasing on-site runoff. 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 will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignfficant 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 insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 6 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Water Quality
Potential Imvact: 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 pellutants 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 increased
degradation of water quality downstream.
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 22 and 23 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impacts:
Toxic Substances
Potential Imnact: The presence of hazardous material within the majority of the
project site is unlikely, however, due to the past agriculture use of the site, there
remains the potential for near surface soft cont~mluation due to residues from prior
pesticide use. Also present within the site are several fffi areas. Although no
hazardous materials were observed within these fills, there remains the inherent
uncertainty as to the subsurface fill 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 will mitigate the identified impact.
Potential Imnact: 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 camera stores, or stores dealing with paints or solvents). However, the exact
businesses to be included on-site are currently unknown.
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 identified impact.
Open Snace 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. However, the project is designed to minimize
9
land use conflicts with existing and surrounding land uses as well as the conflicts
between on-site residential and office/commercial uses through extensive use of
Landscape Development Zones.
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 17 on page II-15 of the
Draft EIR will mitigate the identified impact.
Ener2~ Resources
Potential Imnact: Project development will 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 Ironact: 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 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 29 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Cultural and Scientific Resources
Potential Imnact: 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 unknown cultural resources may occur.
10
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 30 and 31 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Water and Sewer Service
Potential Imnact: Project development will increase the demand on water service in
the area. The total average day demand for the project is estimated at .816 million
gallons daily. The project will require on-site water Hnes 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 Imnact: No reclaimed water hnes or facilities in the project area currently
exist. EMWD wffi 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 specific 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 Imnact: Project development will 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
FF, IR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 34 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
11
Sheriff Services
Potential Imnact: The increase in population as a result of project development will
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 finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 35 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
School
Potential Impact: 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 wffi 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 Impact: Project development wffi place additional demand on existing
electrical supplies. The project is estimated to utilize 5,079,483 kilowatt hours (kwh)
of electridty 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 insignfficant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 38 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
12
Parks and 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 will 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 will 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 ProgrAm wffi mitigate the identffied impact.
Solid Waste
Potential Ironact: Project development will increase the amount of solid waste
generated on-site, which in turn will increase the demand upon waste haniers serving
the area and will 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 Land fill.
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 39 through 41 within
the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAra 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 illumination. 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 insignfficant level.
13
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 42 and 43 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Disaster Preparedness
Potential Imnact: 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 insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures throughout the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
14
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 contains 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
Dsm.
Findings: This impact identLfied 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
ident'L~ed 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 project will 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 pertion
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 wffi 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 Progrnm will partially mitigate the
identified impact.
Climate and Air Quality
Potential Ironact: An estimated .05 tons of particulate emissions will 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 will partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Potential Impact: 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 electricity consumed yearly
and the 2,781,578 cubic feet of natural gas consumed monthly. The pollutant
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 will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
16
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 7 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Potential Imnact: Project development will remove from production existing pasture
crops and dry farmland, as well as resulting 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
insigni~cemce.
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 Imnact: Construction activities wffi remove physical habitats through cut
and fffi 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 cats, 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 wffi 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 will partially mitigate the identified
impacts.
17
Circulation and Traffic
Potential Imnact: The project will generate an estimated 12,268 vehicle trips per day
and 85,876 vehicle miles traveHed daily. Without mitigation, service levels "D" and "1~'
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 (Ynez 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 "F" 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
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 10
through 13 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Libraries
Potential Imnact: 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 ofcommercial/offico/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 urbanization and
is generally surrounded by future urban uses, significant growth-inducing impacts are
difficult to foresee. With the exception of minor extensions, the necessary pubhc
utility infrastructure is in place. Street improvements wffi be required to
accommodate projected traffic volumes and utffities that require extension.
The growth in the area represented by the proposed project and surrounding
projects (Winchester Hills and Temecula Regional Center Specffic 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 identffied the "No Project" and
"Existing Zon/ng' 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 wffi 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
Descrintion of Alternative: The FEIR describes the "No Project" alternative as a
continuation of existing undeveloped conditions supporting passive open space uses
on the project site.
Comparison 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 conformance 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
unecenomical 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
Alternative 2 - Existing Zoning Alternative
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 acres resulting in a total of 79
rural residential units or lots. This alternative would not require a Change of Zone.
Comparison 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
significantly reduce impacts to the area-wide circulation system. However, some
conflict may occur locally between urban traffic flows found in the area of farm
equipment trstT~c 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 tanlos 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 (See Section 1). Alternative 2 was rejected
21
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative eliminates
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 on-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 3 - Reduced Density Alternative No. 1
Descrintion of Alternative: Alternative 3 proposes 389 dwelling units. Commercial,
commercial/office, and park/detention basin uses associated with this Alternative are
identical to those associated with the project proposal.
Comparison 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 Historic 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 Qulmby 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, 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 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 services will be increased. No significant
22
environmentel impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced with this
Alternative.
Alternative 4 - Commerciaifi_ndustrial Alternative
Descrintion of Alternative: Alternative 4 proposes 615 dwelling units resulting in an
addition of 307 dwelling units 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,
W~dlife/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 on- and off-site noise associated with
traffic generation will 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 foliowing reasons. This Alternative was not
selected because impacts associated with traffic, noise, air quality, water, sewer, solid
waste generation and other public services will 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 proposes 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 provigion of 473 dwelling units, an increase of 165 dwelling units as compared to
the proposed project.
Comparison 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 fwe 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 Qnimby 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 will 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 Spaco and Conservation, Wildlife/
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 area. 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 significant.
Impacts associated with water and sewer service demand, solid waste, fwe 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 Paioma 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, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
25
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding 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 surrounding land uses at the Paloma del Sol alternate
site. In addition, the proposed project site's current location provides affordable
housing opportunities for employees of the proposed adjacent projects including the
Industrial Park within Winchester Hffis and Regional 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 "buffer" 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 the Public Resources Cede requires that when a public
agency is making the findings required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)
(1), codified 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 Code 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 findings 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 identffied 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 findings 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
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 ?115194 vgw 33
Z
/...gBGPP.~B89 ~T :gT 1:,BE, T/GG/gEI
abed -- ,Zc)O£~SOgg, tlmJ:l .. us[H/J, 4~6~L '£ aunr/,.p,Ljj l
L90EPPSI)89 0'[ :Be P66nE/E8/90
IS: ilsed -- ,Z90£~0~9, Ioj:l -- .eZi:01, ?~!. '£ a.h~r AepNa I
~,6 39Vci 9131]([ LgI]E:~'I~c;089 6Z:61~ ~'66~/E:0191]
147 olied -- ,Z90£*/~;089~ mojj .. mZL:Oi, 4/66~, '[ aunr Xep!-~:tJ
Z
Z
0
o o o__
!~ X*~
/-98S~,l~5689 1~9 :ST
f~ aRed -- ,Z90£*/?S09~, uloj:l .. illd,/O:t t6~L 'Z as-mr XepsJnqJ.I
/-.gEIEP'Pc~B89 GO :cI
I£ ¥1ed -- ,,./9O£'*7*/SOggr moj:=l -- lud,/O:~? '7661 '7 m,/lr Xepsjnq,LI
J
Z
abed -- ,ZgO£YfSO~9, IoJ:l -- md~O:~, ~L 'Z aunt/,epsjnql[
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM PHASING PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115/94 vgw ~4
DRAFT
RECEIVED
dAN 0 8 1995
CITY OF TEMEC, IJ~
ADDENDUM EIR
CAMPO$ VERDES SPECIFIC PIAN
1
!1
!
I
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/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.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 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 ve~
strong influence on the timing of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development
proiects 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 planned circulation system (including the Overland overpass, Data Street
overpass, and Winchester Interchange improvements) will be needed 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 short-ten (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 the roadway improvements
identified would involve a multi-iurisdiction/agency review and coordination process which could
impact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein.
9
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 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 (beth 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 nex~ 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 (TemeCula 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 improvement 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 individual 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 accommodate the traffic which
these projects will generate.
10
|
1
I
l
l
l
[
l
l
l
l
S
l
l
· ~ ,-:~ '7"8 ~.,~. 8
.,,.
,,. ·
~ 0
As pan of our roadway phasing a.~essment, we have identified a number of improvements which are
currently anticipated to be critical (either directly or indirectly) to the dcvelopment 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 statm 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 Munieta 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 Ove~and Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solann 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 acc. e~
roads.
On-site circulation system improvements/access connections.
Projected 1995 to 1996 Implementation Period Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements.
Two-lane inte/im Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue extension to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
ProjeCted 1996 to 1998 Implementation Pcriod: Winchester Road interchangc overpass widcning.
New signal installations on Yncz Road at County Contcr Drive and Sate Street.
ncw signal installation on Margarita Road at Date Street.
Two-lane extension of General Kearney Road castefly to Nicolas Road.
· Projected 1998 to 1999 Implementation Period:
Date Street overpass improvements.
11
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 from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road.
· Twoqane 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 as 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 Margarita 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 Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
F..xtension 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 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 Figure 14.
Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margarita 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.
12
ii
Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road interchange Overpass widening.
Date Street widening from L'mcoln 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 Canter 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 access 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 Solaria Way to Winchester
Road.
Four-lane improvement of General kearney Road from the new Margafita Road
alignment to the easterly project limits.
Solana Way widening between Ynez Road and Margafita Road.
Ynez Road widening from the Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road.
Winchester Road widening from Margafita Road to Muraleta Hot Springs Road.
New signal installations on Margafita 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 Margafita Road.
New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Margafita.
New signal installation at intersection of Margafita Road and General Kearney Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchang~i ramp improvements.
New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and CamDos Verdes access
road.
13
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 asseased 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. Findings 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 are~ 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 deemed 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 Kemper/Be, dford projects
to assume full responsibility 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 redistributed
to interact with other local or regional development.
14
In terms 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 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
manner.
I
Recommended mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kemper/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.
· 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 responsibility 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 responsibility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement
(Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road).
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed 60 percent of the mitigation.
Campes 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 assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16.6 percent implementation respons~ility for the Winchester Road widening from Margarita
Road to Mur~eta 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.
15
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
[
25 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Solana 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.
· Campos Verdes is assessed 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 Hills is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
9. 25 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane Ynez Road improvement
from its present terminns 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 Hills 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.
Campos 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 General Kearney Road from Margarita Road to the easterly
Campos Verdes 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 responsibility 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 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 I--Iilis project including:
· Date Street signals at Business Park Access 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.
b) 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 Access.
c) 100 percent responsibility for Cempos Verdes Access signals on Margarita Road at
General Kearney Road and Campos Verdes Access Street.
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.
l
!
I
[
I
I
[
!
[
!
!
[
[
17
It is important to note that the implementation responsibilities detailed herein do not take into
account Kemper/Bedfords contributions 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 Kemper/Bedford projects would
be responsible 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 (TDM) Programs which meet the requirements of the City's 'soon to be adopted~ T'DM
ordinance. Please not that the Winchester Hills project, as par~ 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.
18
l
!1
l
!
:
!
:
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER, APRIL 18, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP. PC5 7/15/94 vgw ~B5
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School Dislrict
SUPERINTENDENT
Patricia B. Nerothey, Ed.D.
RECEIVED
APR 2 11BBzt
Ans'd.., ........
BOARD OF EDUCATION
ROS~e Vanderhaak
Barbara Tooker
Lmda C~Fnpeel]
Dr. David Eunch
R~chard Shafer
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: Carnpos 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:
I 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 site.
The District will require good pedestrian, bus and parent vehicle access to this site.
I 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: .2--5
Total .88
The number of new students is determined by multiplying the new dw~iiin9 units by th~se factol s, wh;ch 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.E 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 / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
April 18, 1994
Campos Verdes Specific Plan Conditions
Section V D.5
(TVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/19/94)
SCHOOLS
a. Existine 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 Dwellinq 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 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
elementary site, and no middle or high school site is proposed within the project boundaries, the estimated 119 elementary studeots
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
this project will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The Campos Verdes project lies within the bo0ndaries 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. General 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.
6.
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 Siqnificance After Mitieation
Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an
~nsignificant level.
CAMPOS VERDES
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN
P.A. tS
2.6 AC
CAMPOSVERDES
,,,.....-
P.A. 6
164;
,OBNSITY
MEADOWVIEW
P.A. 2
COMMERC]AU
OFF~,E/
D~rENTION
19,4AC
ATTACHMENT NO. 13
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER, JUNE 29, 1994
R:\STAFFRFT\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 36
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
June 29, 1994
SUPERINTENDENT
Patricia B Novotney, Ed.D
Gary Thornhill & Steve Jiannino
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT:
Campos Vetdes Specific Plan
School Facilities MitLqation Agreement
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Ros~e Vanderhaak
Barbara Tooker
bnda Ca~npbelr
Dr David Eunch
R~chard S~afer
Dear Mr. Thornhill & Jiannino:
The Temecula Valley Unified School District is in discussions with Kemper to establish a school facilities mitigation
agreement to address the project's impacts.
The agreement will involve a combination of statutory school fees and dedication of the graded and improved Campos
Vetdes elementary school site to the District, specific details to be determined by Kernper and the District.
Our expectation is that the agreement be signed prior to final certification of the EIR and final Specific Plan approvals.
If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340.
Sin, cerelyJ , /'
/ c--~
/ / ,
~av'~e-G'~;llahe'r
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 / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
ATTACHMENT NO. 14
MEADOWVIEW LI= I I ER OF SUPPORT
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 37
Meadowview Community Association
May 18, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92591
Attention:
Chairman Steven Ford and
Planning Cormmission
RECEIVED
HAY 8 199 ,
Ans'd...
SubJe'ct: CamDos 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 generc, usly of
his time to meet with individual homeowners along the common area
boundary to hear their concerns and devise a suitable mitigatic~
plan agreeable to both parties.
Kathy ~and, President
Board of Directors
Meadowview Homeowners Association
KH/gg
cc:-, Gary Thornhill,
City Council
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 788 · Temecula, California 92593 · (909) 676-4429