The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About121597 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1997, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fahey ROLL CALL: Fahey, Guerriero, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agerids. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda 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 2. November 3, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Ralph's Grocery Company, located northeasterly of the intersection of Mergarita Road end Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Location: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA97-0305 (Development Plan) Winchester Meadows, AND; Renning Application No. PA97-0368 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697) Winchester Meadows Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC To design, construct and operate a 144,000 square foot, 15-building, commercial retail center in three (3) phases on 15.3 acres, AND; To subdivide 15.3 acres into three parcels zoned Community Commercial North side of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North), between Margarita Road and Roripaugh Road Negative Declaration Carole Donshoe Approval Continued from the December 1, 1997 meeting. R:\WIM~ERVGXPLANCOMM'XAGENDAS\12-15-97.WI>D 12110197 kJb 1 5. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit} TEV, Inc. {Zev Buffman) West of Old Town Temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Motage D~ve end east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Ran The deign, construction and operation of a total of 203,300 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters and shops and associated improvements (herdscape, parking and landscaping) on 16.5 acres Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report {EIR) was Previously Certified end an Addendum to the previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adopted, and Findings that a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR are not required Matthew Fagan Approval 6. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) City-Initiated South of State Highway 79 South, east of Pale Road Cleanup General Plan Amendment and Zone Change changing the designations from Office to Service Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial, and from Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial. Negative Declaration Carole K. Donehoe Recommend Approval 7. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA97-0158 {Specific Plan Amendment) Cei-Paloma del Sol, L.L.C. (Dean Meyer} North of Highway 79 South, East of Margarita, West of Butterfidd Stage Road, and South of Pauba Road Amendment # 6 to the Paloma Del Sol Specific Ran This Project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA due to the previous certification of an Environmental Impact Report for this site John De Gange Recommend Approval PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS Next meeting: January 5, 1998 - Regular Planning Commission Meeting ADJOURNMENT R:\~tlMBERVG\PLANCOM~vI~AGE~DAS~I2-15-97.'gPD 12/10/9'7 ITEM #2 CALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 3, 1997 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:05 P.M., on Monday, November 3, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and Chairwoman Fahey. None. Planning Manager Ubnoske, Principal Engineer Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hogan, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION.' Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE As per written material of record, no additional information. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0349 Repeal Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code pertaining to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage in residential areas. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended that this matter be continued to the meeting of December 1, 1997. Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners and attending audience that staff has been directed by the City Council to readdress this item. In light of this directive, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the prepared information (as per staff report) might possibly be amended and, therefore, a continuance is being recommended. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. A letter of concern (of record) was submitted to the Planning Commission by Mr. Jack Leathers (42623 Remora Street). The following individuals spoke with regard to the proposed repeal of Section 17.24.020(D)(1 )(f) of the City's Development Code (storage of recreational vehicles (RV) in residential areas): Ms. Betty Condren Ms. Marcia Watkins Mr. Frank Geyer Mr. Bill Gray Mr. Jim Porter Mr. Jack Leathers Mr. Melvin Marks 40741 Calle Katerine 30152 Villa Alturas 40466 Chauncey Way 40414 Yardley Court 40221 Tuolomne Court 42623 Remora Street 32121 Corte Carmona The above-mentioned individuals expressed concern with regard to the parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas, noting the following impacts it has on the neighborhood: overall undesirable appearance of the neighborhood detrimental to the value of the neighboring properties public safety - boats/RVs impeding the sidewalks, creating a safety concern for the children as well as to those individuals backing out of their driveways increased public street parking because the boats/RVS are parked in the driveways undesirable view from the neighboring residents who do not park boats/RVs in their driveways It was noted by the concerned residents that a higher penalty should be imposed on those individuals not abiding by the Ordinance and that the enforcement of such an Ordinance should be the responsibility of the City rather than individual Homeowners Associations. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 There being no additional input at this time, the public hearing was left open and the following motion was offered: MOTION.' Commissioner Miller moved to continue Planning Application PA97-0349 to the December 1, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Prior to the December 1, 1997, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Guerriero requested that staff obtain additional input from the Police Department with regard to the enforcement of such an Ordinance. 4. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0319 Amendment to Ordinance No. 81-26 pertaining to advertising regulations and establishing regulations for the use of ambient air balloons and other similar inflatables. RECOMMENDATION It was recommended by staff that the Planning Commission approve the request. Because of his involvement with the Temecula Art, Balloon, and Wine Festival Associa~tion, Commissioner Guerriero abstained with regard to this issue. Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), noting that the proposed amendments would clarify the display period, number of allowable signs, and required spacing between the ambient air balloons. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. There was no input from the public. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 97- __ recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 91- 26, Section 19.8, Subsection C.4 and C.5, perta!ning to advertising regulations for the use of temporary ambient air balloons based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the excel;)tion of Commissioner Guerriero who ~. 5. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0300 Tentative Parcel Map and Environmental Initial Assessment to allow the subdivision of 21.79 acres into 68 residential lots ranging from 6,414 square feet to 29,000 square feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. Advising that she lives in Meadow View, which borders the common area of discussion, Chairwoman Fahey noted that she would be abstaining with regard to this issue and, therefore, departed the meeting. Because his client is the owner of the property of discussion, Commission Miller also noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue and removed himself from the dais. Acting Chairwoman Slaven presided over the meeting. Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the staff report (as per written material of record). Mr. Don Lohr, representing the applicant, requested that Condition No. 4 (the developer shall form a Homeowners' Association to maintain all slopes that are visible from Margarita Road, N. General K~earny Road, and Solana Way, and all downward slopes that are not easily visible to property owners) be clarified to define the downward- sloped lots which will be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association -- Lots 1 ol 1, 30- 35, and 38, noting that all other slopes will be the responsibility of the individual property owner. Mr. Lohr further clarified that any downward slopes along Margarita Road would be included in Condition No. 4 as well as parkway landscaping and open space areas and advised that fencing would be installed at the top of each lot with downward slopes. In response to Commissioner Soltysiak, Mr. Lohr elaborated on the proposed sewer system for the subject site, with Principal Engineer Paks advising that staff is working with Eastern Municipal Water District on this issue but that no final alignment of the sewer line has been determined. For maintenance purposes, Mr. Lohr noted that the slopes will be accessible by way of Margarita Road as well as from a street along the easterly side of the property and that a 10' path will be constructed along the toe of the entire slope. For Commissioner Guerriero, Principal Engineer Parks provided clarification with regard to the wording of Condition No. 22 (public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards), advising that the City's Capital Improvement Project includes full improvement of Margarita Road including the raised landscaped median and that if the City's project were to commence prior to the start of the project of discussion, the developer would not be required to complete this improvement. If this project were completed prior to the completion of the City's improvement project, the developer must comply with Condition No. 22. Assistant Planner Anders noted that Condition Nos. 4, 5, and 57 should be rephrased as follows: R:XPLANCO~S\I99?XlI-3-97.PC 12/10/97ldb 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 No. 4 - the developer shall form a Homeowners' Association to maintain all downward slopes on lots 111, 30-38, and landscape parkways along Margarita Road; No. 5 - the developer shall provide easements on the Final Map that will allow access to lots 1-11, 30-38 and the landscaped parkways on Margarita Road for maintenance by the Homeowners' Association; No. 57 - Lots 1-11, 30-38, parkway landscaping and open space areas shall be maintained by an established Homeowners' Association. Mr. Paul Gonzales, 41820 Marwood Circle, relayed his concerns as to how this development may directly impact his property (41820 Marwood Circle as well as Lot 4 undeveloped parcel attached to 41820 Marwood Circle) as well as property values. In response to Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Lohr advised that because Lot 4 has two frontage sides and, therefore, could not be landlocked by the proposed development; that mailing labels were provided to the City; that the minimum sized lot would be approximately 7,200 square feet with an average of approximately 9,000 square feet; that the proposed development should have a positive impact on the neighboring property values; and that actual home size and sale prices of the proposed development have not been established. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Principal Engineer Parks advised that as this project progresses, staff will address the potential impacts the slope along the Long Canyon may have on the channel characteristics and that staff will investigate the possibility of constructing a gate to preclude access into the canyon area located between the subject site and one other development. For Mr. Gonzales, Principal Engineer Parks commented on measures which would be undertaken to ensure dust control as a result of grading and advised that construction hours will be implemented. MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA No.97-0300; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA No. 97-0300; to approve Resolution No. 97- , based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, and to amend Condition Nos. 4, 5, and 57 (as noted on page 5). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exceDtion of Commissioners Fahey and Miller who abstained. At this time, Commissioner Miller returned to the dais. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT None. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. ADJOURNMENT At 7:00 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Monday, November 17, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. Linda Fahey, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager R:XPL,~qCO~S\I997~II-3-97.PC 12/10/97 Idb 6 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske anager DATE: December 15, 1997 SUBJECT: Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Ralph's Grocery Company, Located Northeasterly of the Intersection of Margarita Road and Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) Prepared by: Carole Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner EXISTING ZONING: Community Commercial (CC) SURROUNDING ZONING: Community Commercial (CC), Public Institutional (PI), and Specific Plan (SP) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Commercial (CC) SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: North: South: East: West: Business Park (BP) Community Commercial (CC)and Low Medium Residential (LM) Business Park (BP) Community Commercial (CC) BACKGROUND Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC is requesting the Planning Commission make a public convenience or necessity finding allowing Ralph's Grocery Company to sell beer, wine and distilled spirits in the retail grocery store at the proposed Winchester Meadows shopping center. This finding is required because the applicant is requesting a Type #21 license (Off-Sale General Retail) from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). According to floor plans submitted for the project, Ralph's Grocery Company proposes approximately 232 linear feet of shelving for liquor sales, or approximately 5% of the shelving, within the 51,028 square foot building. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission has developed criteria to either justify or not justify making a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity pursuant to State Law. These criteria and Stafrs preliminary responses are as follows: Criteria to Justify Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity Does the proposed establishment have any unique features which are not found in other similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other special services)? No. Ralph's Grocery store is a full-service market, with bakery, salad bar, prepared foods, dell, seafood, bank, florist, and reading center. However, full-service markets are expected to be near residential communities for the convenience and easy access of residents. Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a different socio-economic class)? A: No. The market is expected to serve all socio-economic classes. Does the proposed establishment provide entertainment that would fill a niche in the community (i.e. a comedy club, jazz club, etc.) No. The sale of alcoholic beverages in this facility is not associated with entertainment. This criteria is not applicable. Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other establishments in the area? A: No. Sales are anticipated to be typical of market operations. Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e. freeways, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other establishments? Yes. The proposed Winchester Meadows shopping center is bordered on the north by the Santa Gertrudis Creek, and on the other three sides by Margarita Road, Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and Roripaugh Road. Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of population during certain seasonal periods? No. Population is the area is expected to be seasonally stable, but increasing as the adjacent residential areas develop. Influx may occur in the near future as a result of the Domenigoni Reservoir and its proposed recreational components which is under construction east of the site. Criteria to Not Justify Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed establishment? R:\STAFFRFI'~,ALp~IS.ALC 12/10/97cd 2 No. The site lies within District 432-02 according to the Alcohol Beverage Control office in Riverside. There are ten (10) licenses allowed in this census tract, of which six (6) are active. Within a quarter mile radius of the proposed market, there are two licenses, one issued to a gas station with alcohol sales and the other to a grocery, both along Winchester Road. Therefore, the area may be considered underserved. Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity (600 feet) to the proposed establishment? No, there are no sensitive uses within 600 feet of the proposed establishment. The new Chaparral High School is nearby, across Roripaugh Road. The Temecula Valley Unified School District is aware of the project and has responded in writing to the Winchester Meadows project. Two letters from TVUSD, one dated November 12, 1996 and another dated September 17, 1997 are attached to this report. Q: Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses? A: It is unlikely that the proposed market will interfere with these sensitive uses. Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by the residents of the area? A: It is unlikely that the proposed market will interfere with residents. Q: Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area? Staff contacted the Temecula Police Department regarding the proposed liquor license. Police officers have no objections and anticipate that the proposed market will not add substantially to law enforcement problems in the area. Number of similar uses within the City: There are ten licenses issued to grocery establishments within the City limits, and are scattered primarily along Jefferson Avenue. Number of other licensed establishments within 1 mile and 3 miles: There are six licensed establishments (two restaurants, three groceries, and one gas station with alcohol sales) within one mile of the proposed market. A three mile radius would include existing licenses for 65 restaurants, 15 groceries and eight gas stations with alcohol sales. Conclusion: Staff recommends the Commission review the information included in this report and make the appropriate finding. Attachments: 1. Exhibits - Blue Page 4 A. Vicinity Map, including 1/4 mile radius B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map 2. Temecula Valley Unified School District responses - Blue Page 5 A. Letter dated November 12, 1996 B. Letter dated September 17, 1997 R:\STAYYRPTXRALPHS.ALC 12/10197 cd 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBITS R:'~STAFFRIPTXRA, LPH$.ALC 12/10/97 cd 4 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NUMBER: N/A EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 15, 1997 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA SP EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) / VL EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) CASE NUMBER: N/A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 15, 194)7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSES R:\STAFFRFBRALPHS.ALC 12~10/9'/cd 5 )Tuesday Deemleer 2, 1997 1:2/ape -- From '619 5620165' -- Page 21 12-{B2-H~e7 1 :!4PM ~ ,~lb~t. ING ~ 619 ~1~ _,.,----- TEMECULA VALLEY- Unified Scbool Dish'let P-anm e. N:,,eMv. ed.o. November 12_, 1996 Mz, Peter 5ztling Sterling Partners Inc. 2398 San Di,~go Avcnuc San Diego, CA 92110 Neer ~c~eeis - ,4p!~cebili~y to Fm~hcrler Reel TY~i) Properda Dear Mr. St~ding: As a potential layer ofcommerclal properties adjsc~t to the new Chataural High School and the Di.mi""~ Maintcnanc~ Opcations ,e, TranspoRation (MOT} Facility, you have asked !hat our District confirm in writing our positio. on alcohol sales in this vicinity. Wc hav~ ~ t~c-wed this issuc xvith ti~ division of the State Department of Education ~ has authority to approve or deny thc location of sclux~s basxl on surrounding bad uses. The State D~.,~anment of Education recogp;w.e the minimum 600 foot distance n~luir~ment ~ school property lines and ctnnmercial property lincs) as bc~ ~ acceptable guiddin~ for alceho~ licc,-,sca, as duc~bed in the Business and Profusions Code, ~bieh pmvidcs for the dminJ of such licenses within 600 feet of a school sitc, public pla}Xround. or nonprofit youth facility.. The Temecula Valley Unificd Sd~ool District ngrces _rh._~_~ tie 600 foot d~,~qce requirement of the Stale Depamnent of Education and I~e Busincss x, Profusions Code provides a reasonable separation betworn alcohol saJcs nnd school facilities, and ~ consistcndy endorse this t~striction when the City and County, consider land use decisions ncar school properties. B,-~..,,s~ ehis gstriction is for the protection of school c~ilcln:n and lhe. ir learning mvironm~nt, we do not view I~ 600 foot restriction as applicable to thc District's non-school facilities. such as the MOT Facility. Please let mc know if you havc any ~attl~r questions regading our District's Winchester Road propcrtie$. ' Sincerely, ~~~i~LEY UNIRED SCHOOL Director of Facilities Devdogmcnt DISTRICT Patricia 8. Novom~. Ed.D.. Supetinu,~lent, TVUSD David Allmere, Assistant Suped~ Busi.~=~ Support Service, TVUSD 313,40 ~ Visla Fioed /T4mecula, CA ~ f (90e) 676-2~61 TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Patrlc~a B Novomey, Ed.D. September 17, 1997 Ms. Carole Donahoe Temecula Plarmmg Departraent 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula. CA 92590 BOARD OF EDUCATION SUBJECT: PA97-0305 Winchester Meadows Shopping Center Dear Ms. Donahoe: In reviewing the proposed shopping center, Temecula Valley Unified has noted that some of the retail center falls within 600 feet of Chaparral High School. In keeping with the business and professions code restricting alcohol sales within 600 feet of a school, Temecula Valley Unified would oppose the license for the sale of alcohol from the establishments labeled Shop 3, Retail B, Retail C, Shop 4, or Pad F, on the proposed plan. The District would also request that any businesses which may otherwise be considered to be incompatible with an educational seizing also be resmcted from this shopping center. Sincerely, Temecula Valley~ nified School District cc: Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Services 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909} 676-2661 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0305 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA97-0368 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA97-0305 and PA97-0368; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA97-0305 and PA97-0368; ADOPT Resolution No. approving PA97-0305 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. ADOPT Resolution No. approving PA97-0368 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC and WM 15 Partners, LP REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Bergerson, Nadel Architects and Bill James, ALTA Consultants PROPOSAL: To construct and operate a 144,000 square foot, 14-building, commercial retail center in three phases on 15.3 acres, and to divide the project site into three parcels to accommodate the development of the commercial center. LOCATION: Northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and Margarita Road PROJECT STATUS This case was heard by the Planning Commission on December 1, 1997 and continued to December 15, 1997 on a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Guerriero absent due to illness. R:\STAFFRFFX305PA97.PC2 12/10/~/lifo ANALYSIS During the public hearing, Commissioners expressed appreciation to the applicant for his treatment of the water well site. They also expressed approval of the revised color and materials that incorporated the teal canvas canopy and tile (replacing the primary red and blue colors). Commissioner Miller expressed a concern as to the amount of vending machines fronting the buildings and discussed adding a Condition of Approval specifying a square footage for the vending machines. The Commissioners asked the applicant's landscape architect to review with them the details of permanent and interim landscaping and there was significant discussion regarding the amount of permanent perimeter landscaping to be installed during the first phase of the project, especially along the meandering sidewalks of Winchester Road and Margarita Road. There also appeared to be a consensus that the project should be conditioned to remove the chainlink fencing with wind screen from the Phase II portion of the site plan. Areas of Concern Commissioners Fahey and Slaven suggested that the applicant reconsider the design and location of the pedestrian plaza in order to ensure its viability and separation from vehicular traffic. They also requested that the applicant review the path of travel for shopping center customers in order that pedestrian convenience is achieved and the need to use their vehicles is minimized. Alternatives Staff met with the applicant's representatives on two occasions prior to the preparation of this staff report. Alternative designs were presented by both the applicant's architect and City staff. The applicant intends to discuss these alternatives with the Commission at the hearing of December 15, 1997. Additional Concerns Since the Commission's December 1, 1997 meeting, Commissioner Guerriero has reviewed the staff report and listened to the tapes of the hearing. In subsequent conversations with staff, concerns were expressed about the access onto Margarita Road and the potential impacts on COSTCO. As a result of these concerns, staff contacted the applicant and COSTCO. This issue is still being discussed and will be presented to the Commission during staff's presentation. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. Staff continues to recommend approval of the development plan with the attached conditions of approval, and the proposed tentative parcel map with attached conditions of approval. Staff also recommends that the following conditions, as suggested by the Commission on December 1, 1997, be added/changed: Vending machine areas shall be limited in size in accordance with the approved Site Plan. R:XSTAFFRPT~05PA97.PC'2 12/10/~Tklb ~2 2. The chainlink fencing and screening proposed as an interim measure for the Phase II area shall be removed from the Phasing Plan. Permanent perimeter landscaping shall be installed at full width along Winchester Road and Margarita Road in accordance with approved Landscaping Plans. 4. Condition No. 10 shall read as follows: Colors and materials used shall be as follows: Building walls Base accent band Cornice and accent Secondary field Tile accents Storefront Canvas awnings Frazee #CW055W "Honeywind" Stucco Frazee #8733W "Walnut Wash" Stucco Frazee #8243M "Amber Waves" Stucco Frazee #7764M 'Coffee 'N Cream" and #7794D "Appealing Apricot Stucco Ddchtal #724 'D;~[;nct Azure" a,~d #145 "Intense Ca.,.,h.e" Anodized aluminum - Dark Bronze Sunbrella #4603 "Jockey' Red" and #4652" 'Medite.¥anean Dlue" FINDINGS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State Law. The project is consistent with all City ordinan_ces including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. The site is surrounded by development and three roadways. There are no native species of plants or vegetation at the site, nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. FINDINGS FOR THE PARCEL MAP The proposed land division and design is consistent with the General Plan, Ordinances and the Development Code of the City. The site is designated as Community Commercial. Staff has determined that the map is consistent with the goals and policies R:\STAFPRJq"~30$PAg'7.1mC2 12/10FJ7 Idb :3 contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code and adopted Ordinances. The design of the proposed tentative parcel map is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The map was reviewed by interested agencies, and their comments an conditions are referenced within the Conditions of Approval. The design of the proposed land division will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. Parcels will take access from two public roadways and one private street. A reciprocal access agreement shall be required for the site. The nature of the proposed tentative parcel map is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The map is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. The site is surrounded by development and three roadways. There are no native species of plants or vegetation at the she, nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Attachments: 3. 4. 5. PC Resolution for the Development Plan- Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 PC Resolution for the Tentative Parcel Map - Blue Page 20 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 24 initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 34 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 35 Exhibits - Blue Page 36 B. C D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Vicinity Map Zoning Map General Plan Map Site Plan Landscape Plan Elevations - Ralph's Elevations - Shop 2 Elevations - Retail "A" Elevations - Plaza and Well Site Phasing Plan Phasing Interim Landscape Plan Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697 R:\STAFFRFI'~05pA97,PC~ 12/10/c/Tklb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:\STAFFRFB305PAg'7,PC2 12/10/97 kro 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0305 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 144,000 SQUARE FOOT, 14--BUII.!~ING, COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER IN THREE PHASES ON PARCELS CONTAINING 15.3 NET ACRES LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINCFIF,~TER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTH) AND MARGAR1TA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 911-170091, -094 AND -087 WI~-REAS, Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0305 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Cede; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0305 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0305 on December 1, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0305 was continued to December 15, 1997, by a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Guerriero absent due to illness; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0305 on December 15, 1997, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0305; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMtqSION OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Plaxtning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-0305 makes the following findings; to wit: R:XSTAFFRPTX3GSPA97.PC2 12/10/971ffo 6 A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City' s Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. C. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. The site is surrounded by development and three roadways. There are no native species of plants or vegetation at the site, nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. In addition, because the site has been previously disturbed, and no longer supports any fish or wildlife resources, that a DeMinimus impact finding is also being made. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0305 to construct and operate a 144,000 square foot commercial retail center located northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road and Margarita Road and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 911-170-091, -094, -087 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this fifteenth day of December, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the PIning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the fifteenth day of December, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie U'bnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT~05PA97.PC2 12/10/97 klb 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:\STAFFRP'l~05PA97.PC2 12/10/~7 ~ 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL December 15, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0305 - Development Plan Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: A 144,000 square foot, 14-building, commercial retail center in three phases on 15.3 acres 911-170-091, -094, -087 December 15, 1997 December 15, 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements 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 Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hou/period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Plot Plan which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. R:~,STAFFRPT~(~PA97.P~2 12/10/97 m Approval of the project is limited to Ralph's Market, Shop 2 and Area-2 at this time. The remaining buildings will require additional review and approvals, and some uses may require an application for conditional use permit. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D- Site Plan approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0305, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit E- Landscape Plan, or as amended by these conditions. CalTrans has prohibited landscaping within the median of state highways. The applicant shall eliminate the proposed Winchester Road median landscaping from Construction Landscape Plans. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to assure that a 24-foot clearance is provided in the main drive aisles by proper trimming and maintenance of trees below a vertical height of 13 feet, for Fire Department access purposes. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Ranning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibits F - Elevations for Ralph's, G - Elevations for Shop 2, H - Elevations for Retail "A," and I - Elevations for Plaza and Well Site, or as amended by these conditions. am The west/north elevations shown in Phase II (Shop 1 and Retail "A") shall be modified to include a continuation of two bands of building moldings and tile accents similar to the front building treatment and west elevation shown in Phase I. 10. Colors and materials used shall be as follows: Building walls Base accent band Cornice and accent Secondary field Tile accents Storefront Frazee #CW055W "Honeywind" Stucco Frazee #8733W "Walnut Wash" Stucco Frazee #8243M "Amber Waves" Stucco Frazee #7764M "Coffee 'N Cream" and #7794D "Appealing Apricot Stucco I~cl. tal f/724 "D~st;nct Azure" a~d #145 qntense Ca..,;ne" Anodized aluminum - Dark Bronze R:\STAF~OSPA97.PC2 12/10/97 klb ]. ]. Canvas awnings Sunbrella #4003 'Jockey Red" and #4(;52" 'Medite,,anean Dlue~ 11. Plaza furniture, fixtures and equipment used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I - Elevations for Plaza and Well Site, or as amended by these conditions. 12. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a Sign Program for the Center prior to issuance of the first building permit. The monument sign fronting the Rancho California Water District well site is part of the approved elevations for the project, and may be constructed in substantial conformance with Exhibit I - Elevations for the Plaza and Well Site. 13. Phasing of the project shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits J - Phasing Plan and K - Phasing Interim Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions. am A five-foot landscaped planter area for interim plantings shall be provided during Phase I of development, as shown on the Phasing Interim Landscape Plan. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24, Habitat Conservation of the Temecula Municipal Code by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15. 16. The applicant shall record Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697 prior to issuance of Building Permits, or shall redesign the project. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and planted in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plans, and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 18. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized 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 R:\STAFFRFI~305pA97,PC2 12Y10/~7 klb 1~ finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (909) 696- 3000." 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. 19. Performance securities shall be provided, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the removal of the maintenance and operations trailers, the temporary parking, and the temporary landscaping. 20. A Faithful Performance Bond shall be required to guarantee the maintenance of landscaping for one year. 21. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 22. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of City Ordinance No. 655 regarding light pollution. 23. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 24. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 25. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 26. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 27. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 28. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of all building. R:XSTAFFI~PTX305PA97.PC2 12/10/97klb 13 29. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry of all buildings. 30. Show path of accessibility from each parking space to furthest point of improvement in each building. 31. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 32. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 33. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 34. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 35. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 36. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 37. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. FIRE DEPARTMENT 38. Show locations and types of existing fire hydrants. 39. New fire hydrant locations and spacing will be reviewed at the time of submittal of the underground fire hydrant system to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 40. Entrances with driveway medians shall have a minimum of sixteen feet (16') driveway width with a single lane. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS General Requirements 41. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 42. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 43. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State Right-of-Way. R:\STAFFRPT~05PAg?.PC2 12/10/r/klb 44. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 45. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way. 46. A Grading Ran shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 47. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 48. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 49. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 50. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 51. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department 52. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 53. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. R:\STAFFRFT~0~PA97.PC2 1~/10/~/~ ~.~ 54. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 55. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 56. The site is in an area identified on the Flood insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter Of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of · Building Permit 57. Parcel Map No. 28697 shall be recorded 58. Improvement and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 59. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Ran standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: a. improve Winchester Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and raised landscaped median. R:',STAFFRFI~05PAr/.PC2 12/10/97 kro l(5 Improve Roripaugh Road to include sidewalk, street lights, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A School Zone signing and striping plan, per Caltrans' standards, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and included with the street improvement plans for the project. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met, shall be installed by the Developer. 60. The vehicular movement for the southerly driveway on Margarita Road is restricted to right in/right out/left in. 61. The vehicular movement for the northerly driveway on Margarita Road is restricted to right in/right out. 62. The vehicular movement for the driveway on Winchester Road is restricted to right in/right out per the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Caltrans dated October 13, 1995. 63. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 64. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transit Agency and approved by the Department of Public Works. 65. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 66. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 67. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 68. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 69. Raised landscaped median on Margarita Road shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFR,-vr~0$PA97.PC2 12/I0/97k~ 17 70. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 71. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 72. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 73. Prior to installation of the street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant will be required to pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of street lighting on Margarita and Winchester Roads into the TCSD maintenance program. 74. During construction, the applicant shall provide temporary measures acceptable to the Department of Public Works for the protection of the Santa Gertrudis Recreationa~ Trail from any silt, drainage, or other construction debris. 75. Permanent measures acceptable to the Department of Public Works for protecting the trail from silt and drainage will be required prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 76. Class II Bike Lanes shall be required on Margarita Road and Winchester Road and completed in concurrence with the other roadway improvements. 77. If the applicant installs a traffic signal on Margarita Road, a cross walk shall be provided to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. 78. With respect to the raised landscaped median on Margarita Road: The landscape/irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the TCSD. The TCSD may require an agreement and securities for the landscape improvements. The construction of the landscaping shall be inspected by the TCSD. The landscaping shall be completed in concurrence with the median island and prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. OTHER AGENCIES 79. The applicant shall comply with comments from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as noted in their transmittal dated September 29, 1997. 80. The applicant shall comply with comments from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health as noted in their transmittal dated September 17, 1997. R:\STAFI~FI~0~pA97.PC2 12/10/~Tklb 1~ 81. The applicant shall comply with comments from the Temecula Police Department as noted in their transmittal dated September 29, 1997. 82. The applicant shall comply with comments from the Eastern Information Center, UCR as noted in their transmittal dated September 18, 1997. 83. The applicant shall comply with comments from the California Department of Transportation as noted in their transmittal dated September 25, 1997. 84. The applicant shall review comments from the Rancho California Water District as noted in their transmittal dated September 17, 1997. 85. The applicant shall review comments from the Temecula Valley Unified School District as noted in their transmittal dated September 17, 1997. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these Conditions of Approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature R:~STAFFRPT~0SPA97,PC2 12/10/~71~o SK I DAVID P. ZAPPE CiW of Temecula Plannin Department 43200 ~usiness Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: C./~R.O L.F' Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909r'275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 7829.1 The District does not nonhairy mcomrnend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The Distiict aise does not plan check City land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports r such cases. Dis'aiof comments/reoommendation~ forsueh cases am nomtally limited to items of specific interest to the Distdct including Distict Master Dral Plan facitles. other ionil Ikxxl control and Area ~&inage Plan fees (development mitiga6o~ fees). In addition, infomtation of a general nab, we is provided. and safety or any other s~ V/ This project would not be impacl$:J by Disthof Master Drainage Plan facilities nor am other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves Dlstfiof Master Plan facilities. The District will acoe t ownership of such facilities on written request ofthe City. Facilities must be constriPed to District s~rds, and Dmtrict plan check and inspection will be requir6d for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project prc?.pose~. channels. storm din. ins 36 indq. es or larger in dlarneter. or other facilities that c~uld be oftheC' . Fdci~itiesmustbe~nstmctadt~DIs~ct~--p~Ki;mmgs~enddDIs~ctp~an.checkandinspecti~nwd~be requi~lit~rDistr~ctacoeptance. Plan check insm and administrative fees will be required. IS located within the limits of the Distriot"s MORR~'rA CP, F.6& v/' Dmlna eRanforwhlch_~_~faeshavebeenadoptod; taesshouicl i~paldtothe FKxxlContml This project IS b Ols~12or C to final a roval of the p or ina~eNIcocase~caseof a ma or subdivision prior to GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Poliutant Dischange Elimination stem (NPDES) .F~.rmlt from ti"m State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for gradi . m, or :~N'~I apFoval should not be given until ~e City has determined that the project has been grann~ a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this pro'ect involves a Federal Ernergen.cy Management Agency (FEMA ma ilood plain, then the City shou d require ~..pp,cant to rovld. all studes. calculations ,lens and oAal~r n~to~ction required to meet FEMA requirements, and should t~rther require fiat the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) pdor to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project. and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this proj the City should require the a icant to obtain a Section 160111603 A reement from the C~rifomia Department~o RCh and Game and a Clean P~ter Act Seceon 404 Permit from the U.R Army Corps of En ineers, or wdt~en correspondence from these agencies indicating the projed is exempt'from these r_equimmenta. A~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality CerUncation may b~ required from the iocat California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of the Corps 404 pormiL ~./~NT ~OgK ~H/- ~l~glCr ~Hr Ve~tmlyyou~, STUART E MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer County of Riverside DEPARTMENT'OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: September 17, 1997 TO: FROM RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Carole Donahoe, Project Planner NC HARRISON, Environmental Health Special PLOT PLAN NO. PA97~0305 1. The Department of Environmemal Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0305 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the Califomia Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference. please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022). c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Managemere Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.) ·Waste. reduction management. d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). CH:dr (909) 275-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered. can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health Clearance. cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials il4onday september 2~, 1~7 1:03pal -- From ,f '~a2838, -- Page 2i 89/29/1997 13:47 989586. .~8 1E)ECLLA R3LIC, PA~[ 82 City of Temecula Temecula Police Department September 29, 1997 Planning Department RE: PA97-0305 15-BuDding Commercial Retag Carltar {VV'mchester Meadows Center) Case Fqanner: Carols Donshoe With respect to the conditions of approval for She above referenced project. the Police Depa,:-,bent recommends the following 'officer safety' measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecuin Ordinances and/or recognized pofice safety standards and codes: Applicant shall ensure all hedges on the complex surrounding aH bugclings shall be maintained at s height no grsrmr then thirty-six {36) inches. 2. Applicant shall ensure all trees on the property ere kept away from all buildings as 1o deter roof accessability. All pa~king lots, driveways, and pedestrian walkways shall be ifiumlnated with e minimum maintained one (1) f~et-cendle of fight at ground level, evenly (:Rapeweed, efiminatjng alJ shadows. All exterior leghUng fixture shah be vandal resistant. All extedor lighting shall be controlled by photocells, timers, or other means to prevent deactivation by unauthorized peruone. All exterior doors shall have their own vandal reaMant fight f~xture insta/led above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained one (1} foot candle of light at ground levd, evenly dispersed. All public telephones located on the exterior of all buildings in the complex shall be placed in e wail-lighted, highly visible ares, and installed with a Out Only' feature to deter initedng. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and outer miscellaneous hardware shall be of commercial or institutional grade. Any graffdi painted or marked upon the pzemises shall be removed or painted over within twenty-four {24) hours of being discovered. The addraM for the location shall be painted on the roof using numbers no less then four (4| feet tall, In a color which contrasts the background. Septmr 29, 1997 1:03Fro -- From" '062838, -- Page 3r 89/29/1997 13:47 989586. J8 1E]4~CLLA POLIL P~GE: 83 9, Roof hatches shell be painted 'lntematlonal Orange°. 10. Sheet addream shall be posted in a visible location. minimum 12 inches in height, on the neet aide of the budding with a contrasting background. 11. Upon completion of each budding, a 24-hour monitored inn system shall be ineta~ed to ontif'y the Poice Depat':-hent of any intrusion. NI questlone regard'rag these conditions shall be refeffed to the Police Department Crime Prevention & Plans section {909) 506-2626. CAMFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM MOHO [NYO RIVERSIDE Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAL RESOURCE I F, VIEW DATE: ~e~em~er I~, Iqq% RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California HistoricaJ Resources Information System have been reviewed m determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project area hu not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon nxatmg data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources, A Phase 1 study is recommended, A Phase | cultural rtaouroe study (MF/( ) identified one or moro cultural resource. ,/ The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural rosourees, However, due to the nature of the project or p_tior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommendcog. A Phase I cultural rcsourcn study (MF # l,q3/.,z,t.(~/) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not rccommendud. __ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Furthcr study is not recommcndud. V// If. during construction, cultural resouroes arc encounter. d, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a quarifled archaeologist evaluates the rinds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, urthmoviog during construction should be monitored by a professional archaenlogiat. The submission of a cultural rosourcc management report is recommended fotiowing guidelines for AF. haeo!og;.::! Resource Management Reports prcpan~d by the California Office of Histo~c Preservation, Pre3ervation Planning Bulletin 4(a). December 1989. Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Records search and ~cld survcy Testlog [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation musurcs for 'significant' sites. I Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation m place, or a combloation of the two. ] Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: If you have any questions. please contact us. Eastern [ntbrmation Center DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PETE WILSON, Go,wmor Ms. Carole Donahoe Project Planner Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Ms. Donahoe: September 25, 1997 08-RiV-79-R3.4/R3.6 Winchester Meadows ShoDDin~ Center/PA97-0305 Caltrans takes the following positions on the various items listed below: At the Main Entrance from Winchester Road (Route 79), there will be no left-turn lane without signals being warranted. A traffic study shall be prepared and submitted to this office for review. That study should be based on a twenty year future. However, a study based on the year 2015 will be acceptable. If the requested study indicates a warrant for signals at the proposed "Main Entrance", the installation of same will be considered by this office. However, it should be noted at this time that the current Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Caltrans does not mention driveway spacing northerly of Margarita Road other than the normal practices of the City and the State. Considering this information, Caltrans must request a right-in/right-out "only" access to this site from Winchester Road. Upon submittal of a traffic study, as described above and after a thorough review of same by our Traffic Engineers Caltrans might allow the proposed left-turn, but only under signalized conditions. Ms. Carole Donahoe September 25, 1997 Page 2 Submit to this office a hydrology/hydraulics study for this proposal. This study shall be prepared using two scenarios. The first shall deal with the existing site conditions prior to the commencement of any work. The second shall indicate the hydrologic conditions which will exist after completion of this proposal. Both shall use the one hundred (100) year storm as a basis. Submit grading plans to this office when they are available. These plans shall depict existih~ and DroDosed contours (graphically differentiated) in addition to "point specific" elevations. Submit landscaping plans to this office when they become available. These plans shall depict all proposed signage in addition, locations and elevations, in addition to proposed landscaping. Submit a plot/site plan which also depicts all existing and DroDosed utilities. Submit a street improvement plan (including striping) to this office when it becomes available. Caltrans supports economic growth and orderly land use development; however, new development must pay its fair share for upgrading infrastructure facilities needed to serve the development. This infrastructure includes State highways and freeways. It also includes both direct and cumulative traffic impacts. All jurisdictions should take measures available to fund improvements and reduce total trips generated. In view of the fact there are limited funds available for infrastructure improvements, we recommend the City take the lead in developing a fair- share mechanism in which each project can fund improvements for the decrease in Level of Service (LOS) for which it is responsible. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon receipt of the above-requested documents. Ms. Carole Donahoe September 25, 1997 Page 3 This project will require an encroachment permit if there is any work, including work pertaining to: access, grading, or drainage; within, abutting or impacting the State highway right of way. The Department of Transportation would be a responsible agency and may require certain measures be provided as a condition of permit issuance. The developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the District S Permits Office prior to beginning work. Their address and phone number are listed below: Office of Permits California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92402 (909) If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen at (909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934. Sincerely, ~ ROBERT G. HARVEY, Chief Office of Riverside County Transportation Planning Water John F. Hennigar Phillip L. Forbei Kenneth C, Dealy Linda I~I. Fregoso C Michael Coweli Best Best & Krieger LLP September 17, 1997. Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY APN 911-170-087 AND APN 911-170-091 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-305 Dear Ms. Donahoe: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCVVD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. RCWD has an existing 54-inch transmission main along the northerly boundary of this project. Access to this facility at all times is necessary for operations and maintenance. The District requests to be included in the site review process in order to protect the District's assets. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E Development Engineering Manager 971SB: eb1851FO121FCF c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Ranchn California Water District TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Patricia B Novomey EdD September 17, 1997 Ms. Carole Donahoe Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 BOARD OF EDUCATtON SUBJECT: PA97-0305 Winchester Meadows Shopping Center Dear Ms. Donahoc: In reviewing the proposed shopping center, Temecula Valley Unified has noted that some of the retail center falls within 600 feet of Chaparral High School. In keeping with the business and professions code restrictmg alcohol sales within 600 feet of a school, Temecula Valley Unified would oppose the license for the sale of alcohol from the establishments labeled Shop 3, Retail B, Retail C, Shop 4, or Pad F, on the proposed plan. The District would also request that any businesses which may otherwise be considered to be incompatible with an educational setting also be restricted from this shopping center. Sincerely, cc: Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Services 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 97- FOR THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP R:\STAFFRFr~05pA97.PC2 12/10/97 Idb 20 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ~EMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0368 TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINCI~STER ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY 79 NORTH) AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 911-170-091, -094 AND -087. WHEREAS, WM 15 Parreefs LP filed Planning Application No. PA97-0368 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, the Planning Application No. PA97-0368 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0368 on December [, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in suppert or in opposition; WItEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0368 was continued to December 15, 1997, by a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Guerriero absent due to illness; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0368 on December 15, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in suppert or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ffany, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0368; NOW, TItEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission in approving the proposed Parcel Map, makes the following findings: R:XSTAFFRPT~305pA97.PC2 12/10/97k/b 21 A. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: 1. That the proposed land division is consistent with the General Plan, Ordinances and the Development Code of the City. The site is designated as Community Commercial. Staff has detemined that the map is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Code and adopted Ordinances. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The map was reviewed by interested agencies, and their comments an conditions are referenced within the Conditions of Approval. 3. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. The design of the proposed land division will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. Parcels will take access from two public roadways and one private street. A reciprocal access agreement shall be required for the site. 4. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. The site is designated for Community Commercial development, and the project does not exceed the target floor area ratio of this zone. 5. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. The site is surrounded by development and three roadways. There are no native species of plants or vegetation at the site, nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. 6. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The nature of the proposed tentative parcel map is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The map is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General Plan and the development standards contained in the Development Cede. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects am not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved. 7. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that R:~TAFFP, FF~05PA97.PC2 12/10/c/7kre 22 alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA97-0368, as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Conlpliance. An Initial Study prepared for the development project (Planning Application No. PA97-0305 - Development Plan) indicates that the development project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is granted. In addition, because the site has been previously disturbed, and no longer supports any fish or wildlife resources, that a DeMinimus impact finding is also being made. As a result, the division of land to accommodate this development may be exempted from further environmental review. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0368 for the subdivision of a 15.3 acre parcel into three parcels located northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and Margarita Road subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this fifteenth day of December, 1997. Linda Fahey, 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 fifteenth day of December, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'xSTAFFRPT~05PA97.PC/12/10/97klb 23 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PARCEL MAP R:\STAFFRPTX305PA97.PC'2 12/10/97 Bb CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL December 15, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0368 {Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697) Project Description: To subdivide a 15.3 acre parcel into three parcels located northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 911-170-091, -094 and -087 December 15, 1997 December 15, 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Specific Plan Amendment which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Subdivision phasing shall conform substantially with Exhibits J - Phasing Plan and K - Phasing Interim Landscape Plan. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. R:~STAFFRPT~05PAg?.PC2 12/lO/97klb '75 Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 5. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director: a. A copy of the Final Map b. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans c. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. d. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. ii. No lot in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. iii. Every owner of a lot shall own as an appurtenance to such lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. A copy of a reciprocal access and parking agreement between all parties with an interest in any parcel within the subdivision, for review and approval by the Planning Manager. R:~gTAFFRPT~0$pA~7.PC2 12/10~TIffe :2{~ Prior to Issuance of Building Permits A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. 7. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director: Construction landscape plans consistent with the City standards and the approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: b. Wall and fence plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits If deemed necessary by the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 10. The applicant shall sign an agreement and/or DOSt a bond with the City to insure the maintenance of all landscaping within private common areas for a period of one year. 11. All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety. FIRE DEPARTMENT 12. Provide a service agreement or other means for the maintenance of the fire hydrant water mains. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 13. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 14. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. R:\STAFFRP"I~0JPA97.PC2 12/10/97klb 27 15. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 16. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-way. 17. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for any work within their right-of-way. 18. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 19. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: am improve Winchester Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and raised landscaped median. Improve Roripaugh Road to include sidewalk, street lights, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A School Zone signing and striping plan, per Caltrans' standards, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer for the school site within this project and included with the street improvement plans for the project. Design shall also include a warrant analysis for a flashing yellow beacon and if warrants are met, shall be installed by the Developer. 20. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with Ordinance No. 461. R:\STAFFRFI~05PA97.PC2 12/10/97klb ~28 d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable Tv shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Bureau Planning Department Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Caltrans Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Winchester Road on the Parcel Map with the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Margarita Road on the Parcel Map with the exception of two openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Roripaugh Road on the Parcel Map with the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. The vehicular movement for the southerly driveway on Margarita Road is restricted to right in/right out/left in. The vehicular movement for the northerly driveway on Margarita Road is restricted to right in/right out. R:\STA~O~pA97.PC2 12/lO/97klb 29 28. 29. 30. 31. 32, 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. 38. The vehicular movement for the driveway on Winchester Road is restricted to right in/right out per the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Caltrans dated October 13, 1995. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the parcel map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the parcel map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and future bus stops as directed by Riverside Transit Authority and approved by the Department of Public Works. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." R:\STAFFRi~I~05PAgV.PC2 12/10/97 klb 30 Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 39. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department 40. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 41. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 42. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. 43. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 44. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 45. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 46. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT~30~PA97.PC2 12/10/~7k1~ B1 47. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the Develol~er shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Plain Development Permit is required prior to issuance of any permit. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 48. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded. 49. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 50. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 51. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 52. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 53. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 54. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 55. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 56. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated October 29, 1997, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRPTX303PAe~.PC2 12/10/9'/k~ 32 57. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health letter dated November 4, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these Conditions of Approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature R:\STAFFRPT~0SPA97.PC2 1~/10197 klb 33 Water Michael R. McMillan ,Jeffrey L. Minkler John F. Hennigar October 29, 1997 Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL MAP 28697 APN 911-170-087 AND APN 911-170-091 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0368 Dear Ms. Donahoe: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 'Steve Brannon, PE. Development Engineering Manager ,:.EEL ii ~ 97/SB:eb221-1/FO12/FCF c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Rancho California Water District ,/ November 4, 1997 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH City. of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula. CA 92589 ATTN: Carole Donahaoe: RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28697, PA97-0368: PARCEL A:THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 141, 142, 163 AND 164 OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGES 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIFORNIA. PARCEL B: THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 163 AND 164 OF THE TEMECULA LAND AND WATER COMPANY, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8 PAGES 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIFORNIA. (3 LOTS) Dear Gentlemen: 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697-PA97- 0368 and recommends: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet. along with the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: 'I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697, is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services, storage. and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Parcel Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Parcel Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least TWO WEEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. John M. Fanning, Director 4065 County Circle Drive * Riverside. CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017 (Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Riverside, CA 92513-7600) ..................... City of Temecula Planning E Page Two Atm: Carole Donahoe November 4, 1997 This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. This subdivision is within the Eastem Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697, is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastem Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. 5. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized PRIOR to recordation of the final map. 6. It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. Sincerely, Gregor Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV GD:dr (909) 275-8980 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPTX305PAgV.PC2 12/10/~7 klb 34 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 10. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planrang Application (Development Plan) Shopping Center No. PA97-0305 Winchester Meadows City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner, (909) 694-6400 Northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and Margarita Road Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC, 11440 W. Bernardo Ct., Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92127 CC (Community Commercial) and SP (Specific Plan) Area Overlay CC (Community Commercial) To construct and operate a 144,000 square foot, 15-building, commercial retail center in three phases on 15.3 acres The Santa Gertrudis Creek Flood Control Channel to the north, Temecula Valley Unified School Disu'ict maintenance and transportation facility to the east, Roripaugh Road and Chapanal High School to the east, Winchester Road, residential development and vacant property to the south, and Margarita Road and the Costco commercial development to the west. Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Riverside County Flood Control, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone R:\CEQAX305PA97.1ES 11/17/97 cd ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [X'] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics [X] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Signi~cance DETERMINATION On the basis of this imtial evaluation: I fmd 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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Printed Name: Carole K. Donahoe. AICP Date: November 12. 1997 For: City of Temecula R:\CEQAX305PA97.aiS 11/1707 cd ISSUES AND SU?PORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mttigateon Impact Inconporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANN]NG. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1. Page 2-17) b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d. Affect agrieultural resourcesoroperauons(eg. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from thcompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5 -4, Page 5-17) e. Disruptordividethephysicalarrangementofanestablished conunum~y (including low-income or minority commumty)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source I, Figure 2-l, Page 2-17) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6) b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seisrmc ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) d.Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill9 g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68) h. Expansive soils? [] [] [] ~] [] [] [] [~ [] [I [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] Ix] [] [] [] [1 [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ l] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ R:\CEQA'~05PA97.IES 11/17/97cd ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Signff~c~mt No Impact Impact I. Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runofl'? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10 and Figure 7-4, Page 7-12; Source 5) Discharge into surface watem or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direclion of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater other.vise available for public water supplies? (Source 2, Page 263) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an e.,dsting or projected air quality violation? (Source I, Page 2-29) b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? [] [] [1 [~ [] [x] [1 [] [1 [] [l [~ [1 [x] [] [1 [1 [1 [x] [l [I [] [x] [] [1 ix] [] [1 [] [l [~ [1 [] [1 [~ [1 [] [] [~ [] [] [1 [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [1 [] [~ [1 [1 [] [~ R:\CEQA~305PA97.IES 11/17/97 cd ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Significam Mitigation L~s Than Significant No Impact Impact TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features [e.g. sharp cttrves or dangerous mtersectxon or incompatible uses)? c Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Page 17-24-9) e. Hazards or beers for pedestrians or bicyclists? E Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Page 12) g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in irapar. Is to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3) b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) c. Locally designated natural communities [e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, npanan andvernal pooD? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5 - 15) e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c. Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [] [] Ix] E] [] Ix] [] [] [] [0 [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [0 [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [0 [] [] [] f~ [] [] 7] [] [] [] [] [~ ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES potentially Significant Potentially Unless Signi~cant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. Ariskofaccidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pestleides, chemica! or radiatinn~? (Source 1, Figure %5, Page 7-14) b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d. E×posureofpeopletoex~stingsottrcesofpotentialhealth hazards? e. Increase f~re hazard in areas with fiarnmable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. E×posure ofpeople to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a, Fi~e protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a Power or natural gas? b. Commumcatinns systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? [] [] [] [~ [] [3 [] [~ [] [] [) [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] Ix] [] [1 [] [x] [] [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ R:\CEQA~305PA97.1ES 11/17/97 cd ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORIMAT|ON SOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Sigmacant Unless Incorporated L~ss T~an Signi~cam Impact No Impac~ d. Sawer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 39-40) e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280; Source 6) b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283) c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below seff-sustaimng levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] [] [l [] [1 [] [] [] [] [l [] [] [1 [1 [l [1 [1 [1 [] ix] Ix] Ix] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [l [] {] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] ix] Ix] [l Ix] [] ix] [xl [] [1 [] Ix] Ix] [x] Ix] Ix] [] [1 [x'] ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant No Impact Impact b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ] [] Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCnmulativcly considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [1 [] [1 [~ Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [) [] ~1 [~ 17. EARLIZR ANALYSES. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 2, 1993 SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook 4. City of Temecula Development Code R:\CEQA~305PA97.I~S 11/17/97cd DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning l.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of CC (Community Commercial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of lhe analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the oppornmity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any, environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The site is designated on the General Plan as being within a specific plan overlay area. However, the majority of the original 120 acres so designated has already been developed with streets, public facilities and the new Chaparral High School and Temecula Valley Unified School District maintenance and bus yard. Therefore, the balance of the area may be designed independently within the CC Community Commercial zone to be compatible and with no significant effects upon existing land uses in the vicinity. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). The project site is currently vacant and is located at the intersection of two highways. The design of the commercial center is not anticipated to disrupt nearby communities with its activities or traffic. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Population and Housing The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is a retail commercial center which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Community Commercial, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. The project may cause some people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems 3.b,f,h. The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. A Preliminary Geotechnical R:\CEQAX305PA97.111S 11/I7/97cd 3.d. 3.e. 3.i. Water 4.a. 4.c. 4.d,e. Investigation by NorCa/Engineering dated June 6, 1997, was prepared for this project and will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils report will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. The investigation indicates that by following the recommendations and guidelines the structures will be safe from excessive se~ements under the anticipated design loadings and conditions. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltafion, deposition or erosion. Erosion control teehnjques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, bardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards conld occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proxjmate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than ~ignificant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, 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 permitled until an NPDES Notice of lntent 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. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surl~ce water in any water body or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the City's drainage system will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQAx305PA97.1ES 11/17/97 cd 4.f-h. The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air Ouality The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan which established target floor area ratios wi~'~n certain land uses in order to determine the intensity of use and impact upon the environment. The project is below the target floor area ratio for the Community Commercial zone, and therefore wilt not exceed anticipated impacts which have been mitigated through General Plan policies and guidelines. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants nor sensitive receptors in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered sigmficant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project. Transpormtlon/Circulafion The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by Linscotl Law and Greenspan dated August 27, 1997, indicates that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersection of Margarita Road and Winchester Road. The project has been designed to incorporate mitigation measures noted in the analysis. The applicant will be required to pay Development Impact Fees as a condition of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA~305PA97.1ES 11/17/97cd The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is a automotive service facility in an area with existing similar uses and planned Community Commercial uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project has been designed to provide bike lanes and meandering sidewalks both on Winchester Road and Margarita Road, bike racks and motorcycle spaces throughout the shopping center, and pedestrian plazas both as main project activity area and as convenient gathering areas. The project complies with policies for alternative transportation. 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecuta Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.c. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.d. The project will not result in an impact to weftand habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site and the weftand adjacent to the site will not be disturbed. Reference response 7.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQAx305PA97.1ES 11/17/97 cd Energy and Mineral Resources The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check slage. No permill will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. The project will not result in ~he loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Hazards The project will not restfit in a significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the evem of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. While some retail uses may have the potential to sell hazardous substances, they are regulated by both the Fire Department and the Department of Environmental Health. Both entities have reviewed the project. The applicant must receive clearance from the Department of Environmental Health prior to any plan check submittal. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not 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. The project will take access from maintained streets and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permill will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. Reference response 9.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is in an area of existing uses and proposed Community Commercial uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA~305PA97,IES I1/17/97cd Noise The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is curren~y vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, the project site is adjacent to Winchester Road, a state highway, and Margarita Road, an arterial roadway. Ambient noise levels 100 feet from cente~ine are 62.7 to 72.4 CNEL and 46.6 to 59.5 CNEL respectively. According to the City's General Plan, it is appropriate to place insensitive land uses such as commercial centers adjacent to noise generators such as highways. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. Noise impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. 10.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction 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. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long- term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services ll.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the cost of maintenance of service provision from these entities. The Police Department has reviewed the project and recommends Officer Safety Measures which shall be made conditions of approval. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.c. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. 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 development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11 .e . The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significam impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA~305PA97.1ES 11/17/97cd 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Hnal Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMVqD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services Co. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. Aceording to a Preliminary Drainage Report dated September 15, 1997, submitted with this project, the project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. According to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted and shall be paid. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development 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. 12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 13.a, b. The project has been redesigned several times to mitigate its effect upon views from Winchester Road and Margarita Road. While the City does not have any designated scenic highways, the project site can be considered an enay location for visitors from outlying areas east and north. A project entry focal point was added to the site, as well as a monumentation wall at the corner. Landscaping was enhanced with berming, trees, shrubs, ivy and groundcover. Buildings were redesigned to add visual interest to all sides. Due to the visibility along Margarita Road, wails were added to screen unsightly activities such as loading docks and trash areas. With its redesign, the project is anticipated to generate no significant impacts. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is a retail commercial center in an area of existing uses and proposed Community Commercial uses. See Response 13.a. 13.c. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project 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. R:XCEQAx305PA97.IES 11/17/97cd Cultural Resources 14.b,c. The project will not have an impact on historical resources. A Phase I Cultural Resource Study (MF#2432, 2664) identified no cultural resources at the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:XCEQAx305PA97.1ES 11/17/97cd ATTACHMENT NO. 4 MITIGATION MONITORING STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~OSPA97,PC2 12/10/97 Ir~ B~ Mitigation Monitoring Progrmn Planning Application No. PA97-0305 (Development Plan) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Deparunent of Public Works and Building and Safety Deparunent. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit consauction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Deparunent. General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soft conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Deparunent of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion. changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation. grading or ~l. Plaming of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to ~ae Planning Deparanent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic grotm~ shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shah be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and bu~ding permits. Deparm~ent of Public Works and Building & Safety Deparlment. Exposure of people or property m fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure. landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Deparnnent R:\CEQAN305PA97.1ES 11/17/97c, d Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Deparnnent of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shah be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fees which contribute to road improvements and traffic signal installations. Pay fees as computed by the Building Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Deparunent of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Ptlblic Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: lnsufficiem parking capacity on-site or off-site. Provide on-site parking spaces to accomanodate the use. InstaB on-site parking spaces. Prior to ~he issuance of occupancy permits. Deparnnent of Public Works, Planning Department and Building & Safety Department. Endangered, threatened or rare species or theft habitats (including but not limited to plains, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Deparnnem of Public Works and Planning Deparanent A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for f~re protection; however, it will contribute in fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Development Impact Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Deparunent General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: AESTItETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Deparnnent and Temecula Valley Unified School District. A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements. traffic impacts. and public facilities. Pay fees computed by the Building Department. Prior to the issuance of bufiding permits. Department of Public Works. The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent wifi't Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. R:\CEQAx305P?~971ES 11/17/97cd ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRP'D305pA97.PC2 12/10/97klb 36 CITY OF TEMECULA TO 5AN CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 R:\STAFFRFl~05pA97.PC ll/19/971db CITY OF TE1VIECULA _ __ SP EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ./ EXHHiIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 R:\~TAFFRPTX30$pA97.pC ll/19/97klb CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA97-4)305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) EXHIBIT ' D SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 R:\STAFFRFl'~05pA97.1~C ll/19197klb CITY OF TEMECULA - CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) EYj-rmIT - E LANDSCAPE PL_AN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 R:~STAFFRPT~305PA97.PC 11/19/97 lab CITY OF TEMECULA SOUTH ELI~VATION NORTH ELEVATION ELEVATION - PHASE I EAST ELEVATION ELEVATION - PHASE II CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) EXHIBIT - F ELEVATIONS - RALPHS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA ~;:~t ~_L~YATION r-jaJTH EleVATiON CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) EXHIBIT - G ELEVATIONS - SHOP 2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 __ R:X$TAFFR~l'G05PA97.PC 11119197 lab CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) EXIHBIT - H ELEVATIONS - RETML "A" PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 R:~TAFFRPTx305pA97.1~C 11/19/971db CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) ExmBrr - I ELEVATIONS - PLAZA AND WELL SI~TE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 R:XSTAFFRPT~05PA97.1~C 11119197 CITY OF TEMECULA SUITIITlarV A,,~, t ~ A~ a CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) Ex~arr - j PHASING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 R:~TAFFRIr~05PA97.PC 11/19/97 I~ CITY OF TEMECULA · CASE NO. - PA97-0305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) EXHIBIT - K PHASING INTERIM LANDSCAPE PLA~I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 R:~STAFFRFr~05PA97.PC 11/20/97 klb CITY OF TEMECULA I! TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28697 t ' ' CASE NO. - PA97-4)305 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28697) EXHIBIT - L TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28697 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 1, 1997 R:\$TAFFRPTX305pA97.PC 11/20/971ffo ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: MAKE a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and an Addendure to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adopted and findings that a subsequent EIR is not required; and ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. PA97-0392 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: TEV, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Engineering Ventures PROPOSAL: The design, construction and operation of a total of 203,300 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters and shops and associated improvements (hardscape, parking and landscaping) on 16.5 acres LOCATION: West of Old Town Temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan (SP), Light Industrial (LI) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Light Industrial (LI) Specific Plan (SP) - Westside Specific Plan Specific Plan (SP) - Old Town Temecula Specific Plan Specific Plan (SP) - Westside Specific Plan PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested R:~STAFFRP'I~92pA97.PCI 12/10/9'/klb GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP), High Density Residential (H) and Light Industrial (LI) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Single-family residences/multi-family residences West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 16.5 acres Total Building Area: 203,300 square feet Total Landscape Area: 143,748 square feet Total Hardscape Area: 36,712 square feet Total Parking Area: 334,980 square feet Parking Spaces Required: 1,034 spaces Parking Spaces Provided: 904 spaces BACKGROUND A pre-application submittal for the project was made on October 30, 1997, with staff providing comments on this submittal to the applicant on November 4, 1997. The formal application submittal was made on November 10, 1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on November 20, 1997. The project was deemed complete on December 2, 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the design, construction and operation of approximately 203,300 square feet of entertainment, retail and restaurant space, with associated landscaping, hardscape and parking. The building uses and square footages are detailed in the table below: Phase II Building Area Tabulation Building {Letter Corresponds to Raze Ran) Welcome Center (A) Building Square Footage 1,000 square feet Retail Shops & Major Retail (B) Retail Shops, Music Plaza, Food & Retail (C) Virtual Reality Ride, Penny Arcade & Restaurant (D) 25,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 17,000 square feet Visitor Information (E) 1,500 square feet Roy Rogers Experience, Retail Shops, Diner, Honky-Tonk Music Theater & Celebrity Theater (F) 100,600 square feet R:\STAl~RPT~92PA97.PCI 12/10/~7klb 2 Building (Letter Corresponds to Raze Plan) Retail Shops (G) Chapel (H) Retail Shops (I) Studio Theater, Restaurant, Food Exposition & Native American Store (J) Total (A-J) Building Square Footage 8,000 square feet 1,800 square feet 5,000 square feet 33,400 square feet 203,300 square feet ANALYSIS The project is Phase II of a larger project. Phase I (Planning Application No. PA97-0298 - Development Plan) was approved by the Ranning Commission on October 6, 1997 and consists of the construction and operation of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways). Hardscape improvements include: the arena, walkways, driveways, parking areas and drainage facilities. Landscape improvements include: slopes on the west side of the Western By-Pass Corridor, all on-site slopes, streetscape on First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor (including median landscaping), and Vincent Moraga Drive. Roadway improvements include: First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor, and Vincent Moraga Drive. An appeal of the Commission's approval was filed and the City Council upheld the Commission's decision at their November 18, 1997 hearing. The details of the components of Phase II are discussed below. Exhibit D (Site Plan) depicts Phases I and II of the project. Phase II components include parking facilities at the northern and southern ends of the project. These parking areas tie into the existing circulation system and will add to the parking necessary for the function of the overall project (both Phases). Ten buildings, of various sizes, are proposed within Phase II. They are centrally located in the project, and are laid out in a manner which creates streetscapes internal to the proiect. The details of this area will be discussed below in the Plaza Plan. Vehicular and pedestrian linkages provided to Old Town along First Street, Vincent Moraga Drive and the Western By-Pass Corridor from Phase I will apply to this component of the project. Exhibit E (Plaza Plan) shows the building footprints, as well as the amenities which are included in this area. As discussed above, the buildings are laid out in a manner which creates streetscapes interior to the project. Hardscape items such as walkways and streets are called out on the plan. In addition, a detailed landscape concept has been included on the plan. Mature trees (minimum 36" box) are proposed. Shrubs, turf and groundcover are also utilized in this area to complement the outdoor seating and open spaces areas. A pond is proposed to the west of the Chapel. The applicant has expressed concerns regarding visibility of businesses and associated signage within the plaza area. They want to provide fewer large trees in lieu of many small trees (15 gallon is the minimum required in the Westside Specific Plan). Staff is comfortable with this approach for the following reasons. First, the larger trees will be placed adjacent to areas where people will gather and/or rest. Secondly, larger trees will provide more shade to the project in the short-run and an equivalent amount of shade to the project in the long-run. Lastly, fewer, larger trees will allow the variety and interest of the building facades to be more visible; thereby allowing the character of the development to be fully appreciated by the patrons. LandscaDing Exhibit F, (Landscape Plan) shows the size and types of plants for the parking areas and slope plantings on the east side of the project (which serve as a buffer to the existing residences along Pujol Street). Similar to Phase I, a Condition of Approval has been added to the project which will require landscape and irrigation plans for all slope areas which will be disturbed by project grading be approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In addition, a Condition of Approval has been added which will require the applicant to post a bond for the installation of the slope landscaping and irrigation prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Staff feels the landscape plans are comprehensive and addressed the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the original workshop for this project regarding buffering the residences along Pujol Street from the project. Architecture Section II.A.5.b of the Westside Specific Ran contains Design Guidelines for three architectural styles: Western, Spanish Colonial and Monterey. The majority of the project fits within these three styles, and those elements visible from the public view are consistent with these styles. Other styles are proposed within the internal steetscape of the project which are not specifically identified in the Design Guidelines of the Westside Specific Plan. However, the Specific Plan does allow some flexibility. Section Ill. D. of the Specific Plan allows exceptions when deviations from the standards are minor and no impact will occur affecting the public health and safety of adjacent properties. Staff has determined that this exception may be granted because the elevations proposed which are not within the Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan are internal to the project, are minor and will not impact the public health and safety of adiacent properties. The architectural styles of the development span many eras, with the culmination of the 20th Century area. Colors and materials for each of the styles are reflective of those used during that specific era. Two historical advertisement signs have been included within the project which staff feels function as architectural features. These signs will be allowed to display historic advertisements and will not be visible off-site. Three typical detailed elevations have been included as exhibits for the project. The purpose of these exhibits is to provide precise details of colors and materials used for each style. Since there are ten buildings, with several elevations for each building, staff and the applicant agreed that the three typical elevations would serve to present the intent for the colors and materials used for all of the proposed conceptual elevations, The intent is for all buildings to use authentic, high quality materials which will foster high-quality design. All designs/elevations will need to conform with the intent of these typical elevations. This is clarified in the Conditions of Approval. Building heights range from a maximum height of 68' for the Celebrity Theater to 35' feet for the Honky-Tonk Theater. The maximum height for structures in this area is 150 feet, per the Westside Specific Ran. The majority of the project will be at the height of a two story building. Many false second story elements are proposed, as well as several tower elements. Staff feels the use of multiple architectural styles, well articulated facades, varied roof lines and the use of tower features throughout the project will create an interesting and pedestrian oriented feel to the development. Traffic/Parking Analvsis Traffic for Phase II was analyzed and addressed during Phase I (Planning Application No. PA97- 0298 - Development Plan). All mitigation measures from the Old Town Redevelopment Project, including those required for traffic mitigation, shall apply to this phase of the project. The applicant is proposing that parking on the site be shared amongst the various venues. Based upon a shared parking analysis, the applicant stated that this would result in an overall reduction in the amount of parking spaces which would be needed for the project. In order to support their claim, Staff requested that the applicant provide an analysis which examined the parking requirements for the project and justified a reduction in the amount of required parking. Attachment No. 2 contains the Analysis prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, dated November 4, 1997. This analysis is built upon a previously prepared analysis for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. The analysis looked at a worse-case scenario for parking demand at the site. On page 8 of the analysis, it was determined that for the peak season weekday scenario, maximum parking demand would occur between 7:30 and 8:30 pm, when 1,971 vehicles would be parked on-site. For the peak weekend scenario, maximum demand is estimated to occur between 3:30 and 4:00 pro, when a maximum total of 2,351 vehicles would be parked on-site. It is stated on Page 8 of the analysis that the current site plan provides a total of 2,583 parking spaces, while the Westside Specific Plan requires a total of 2,755 parking spaces. The analysis concludes: "Based on the findings of the parking demand and parking accumulation analysis, the current site plan provides 232 parking spaces (9.9 percent) above the 2,351 parking spaces estimated for maximum peak season weekend parking accumulation." The shared parking analysis is based upon the fact that some visitors will go to more than one of the on-site attractions and as a result, fewer parking spaces will be required overall. Staff is comfortable with the methodology and findings in this analysis. A Condition of Approval has been added to the project which requires the applicant apply for a Minor Exception for approval by the Planning Manager for a reduction in the amount of required parking, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Should the applicant propose any modifications to the uses which would intensify the need for parking, a subsequent study would be required to determine if the parking is adequate or if additional parking facilities need to be provided. In addition, Condition of Approval No. 9 of Planning Application No. PA97-0298 addressed this issue. This Condition states: "Prior to any expansion to the seating capacity (above 4,800 R:\STAFFRPTX392PAg'7.PC1 12/10/9'/I~b 5 seats) of the arena, or the application submittal of Phase II of the project, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of a parking study to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. Said study shall analyze the adequacy of existing parking facilities, the possibility and feasibility of reciprocal parking, and make recommendations for the amount of additional parking which will be required to accommodate the uses on-site." GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY A General Ran consistency analysis was performed for the Old Town Redevelopment Project and was included as an Attachment for Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan). Staff reviewed this analysis and determined the project (both Phases I and II) were consistent with that analysis, and therefore were consistent with the General Plan. The applicant performed an analysis entitled "Westside Specific Plan Project Description and Consistency Evaluation" (Westside Specific Plan Consistency Report) which made a determination that the project as proposed is consistent with the Westside Specific Plan. Staff reviewed the analysis and determined the project was consistent with the Westside Specific Ran. The Westside Specific Plan Consistency Report was included in the Addendure to the previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. This Addendum was approved by the Planning Commission on October 6, 1997 and the City Council on November 18, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Addendum to the previously certified EIR for this project was prepared. It was adopted by the Planning Commission on October 6, 1997 and the City Council on November 18, 1997. This project is included on the scope of that Addendum and the previously certified EIR, therefore, no further environmental review will be required for this project. Staff recommends the Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adopted and findings that a subsequent EIR is not required. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project consists of the design, construction and operation of approximately 203,300 square feet of entertainment, retail and restaurant space, with associated landscaping, hardscape and parking. The project is Phase II of a larger project. Phase I (Planning Application No. PA97- 0298 - Development Ran) was approved by the Ranning Commission on October 6, 1997. An appeal of the Commission's approval was filed and the City Council upheld the Commission's decision at their November 18, 1997 hearing. The buildings are laid out in a manner which creates streetscapes interior to the project. The landscape plan shows the size and types of plants for the parking areas and slope plantings on the east side of the project (which serve as a buffer to the existing residences along Pujol Street). Section II.A.5.b of the Westside Specific Ran contains Design Guidelines for three architectural styles: Western, Spanish Colonial and Monterey. The majority of the project fits within these R:~STAFFRFF~92PA97.PCI 12/10/97 kFo 6 three styles, and those elements visible from the public view are consistent with these styles. Other styles are proposed within the internal steetscape of the project which are not specifically identified in the Design Guidelines of the Westside Specific Plan. However, the Specific Plan does allow some flexibility. Traffic for Phase II was analyzed and addressed during Phase I (Planning Application No. PA97- 0298 - Development Plan). All mitigation measures from the Old Town Redevelopment Project, including those required for traffic mitigation, shall apply to this phase of the project. The applicant is proposing that parking on the site be shared amongst the various venues. Staff is comfortable with the methodology and findings in this analysis. A Condition of Approval has been added to the project which requires the applicant apply for a Minor Exception for approval by the Planning Manager for a reduction in the amount of required parking, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Should the applicant propose any modifications to the uses which would intensify the need for parking, a subsequent study would be required to determine if the parking is adequate or if additional parking facilities need to be provided. The project (both Phases I and Ill were consistent with that analysis, and therefore were consistent with the General Plan and the Westside Specific Plan. Staff is recommending that the Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adopted and findings that a subsequent EIR is not required. FINDINGS The Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and that no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons: On July 13, 1995, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95-49 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0031 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 15, EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA RIVER," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Westside Specific Plan and Ranning Application No. PA95- 0003 (Westside Specific Plan) and changing the zone from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural - Twenty Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to S-P (Specific Plan) for the Property. An amendment to the project was approved by the Planning Commission on March 18, 1996 and by the City Council on March 26, 1996, at which time a finding was made that no further environmental review was required for the project; The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study lIES), dated September 17, 1997, analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which IES is incorporated herein by this reference. An Initial Environmental Study 0ES) was conducted to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project (Planning Application No. PA95- 0031). Based upon this analysis, staff determined an Addendum to the previously certified FIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Addendum was prepared because changes and additions were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Mitigation measures approved with the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95- 0031) will apply to this project. The proposed Project incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, the Westside Specific Plan, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Final Environmental Impact Report) and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Project which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). Minor changes to the project have been reviewed and examined in an Addendure to Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence and the Addendum, the Planning Commission on October 6, 1997 and the City Council on November 18, 1997 made findings and determined that neither a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR was required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163. The elements of the Project, as described in the Conditional Use Permit were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1995 and the Addendure adopted on November 18, 1997. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. R:\STAFFRIrFx39'2PAr/.PCl 12/10/97 klb 8 There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Conditional Use Permit The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project meets the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan, is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the Westside Specific Plan and the applicable sections of the City's Development Code. m The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the Westside Specific Plan and the applicable sections of the City's Development Code. The uses on-site will be compatible with each other in terms of intensity of use, scale and design. The uses proposed are consistent with the Westside Specific Plan and are allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. There is adequate buffering between those uses on-site and those uses which are adjacent (off-site), The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the Westside Specific Plan and the applicable sections of the City's Development Code. The uses on-site will be compatible with each other in terms of intensity of use, scale and design. The uses proposed are consistent with the Westside Specific Plan and are allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. There is adequate buffering between those uses on-site and those uses which are adjacent (off-site). The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project as designed and conditioned will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. R:\STAFFRPT~92pA97.PCI 12110/97 klb 9 The decision to conditionally approve the application is based upon substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Ranning Commission. The Commission has received a copy of the Staff Report which includes the necessary analysis, findings and Conditions of Approval. In addition, the Commission has previously reviewed and recommended approval of an EIR and Addendum to the EIR, both of which were certified/adopted by the City Council and which addressed the impacts of this project on the environment and the necessary mitigation measures. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 11 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 17 Parking Study Update Letter - Blue Page 34 Adopted Addendum to Previously Certified EIR - Blue Page 35 Exhibits - Blue Page 36 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Plaza Plan F. Landscape Plan G. Elevations H. Typical Elevations R:~STAFFILu'f~92PA97.PC1 12/10/97 kJb 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:\STAFFRPT~92PA97.PCI 12/10/J7 klb 11 ATTACHMENT NO. I RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO PERMIT THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TOTAL OF 203,300 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, RESTAURANT, ARCADES, THEATERS AND SHOPS AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS (HARDSCAPE, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING) ON 16.5 ACRF~ LOCATED WEST OF OLD TOWN TEMECULA (100 FEET WEST OF PUJOL STREET), 700 FEET SOUTH OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE/VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE AND EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, WITHIN THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 940-310-013, 940-310-044, 940-310-045, 940-310- 047, 940-310-048, 940-320-001, 940-320-002, 940-320-003 WHEREAS, TEV, Inc. Company filed Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit), on December 15, 1997 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit); NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Eiadiagk That the Temecuta Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings; to wit: 1. The Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and that no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons: R:\STAFFRPT~9'2PA97.PC1 12/10/97klb 12 A. On July 13, 1995, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95-49 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0031 (HNAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INrI:~RSTATE 15, EAST OF THE C1TY'S WES'iERN BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA RIVER," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Westside Spedtic Plan and Planning Application No. PA95- 0003 (V4estside Specific Plan) and changing the zone from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural - Twenty Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to S-P (Specific Plan) for the Property. B. An amendment to the project was approved by the Planning Commission on March 18, 1996 and by the City Council on March 26, 1996, at which time a finding was made that no further environmental review was required for the project; C. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study (IF_S), dated September 17, 1997, analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which IES is incorporated herein by this reference. D. An Initial Environmental Study (IF.S) was conducted to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report 0ilR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031). Based upon this analysis, staff determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Addendure was prepared because changes and additions were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Mitigation measures approved with the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) will apply to this project. E. The proposed Project incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, the Westside Specific Plan, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Final Environmental Impact Report) and such other ordinances, roles, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Project which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (PEIR). Minor changes to the project have been reviewed and examined in an Addendum to Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). F. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence and the Addendum, the Planning Commission on October 6, 1997 and the City Council on November 18, 1997 made findings and determined that neither a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR was required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cat. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163. R:~STAFPRPT~92PA97.PCI 12/10/97 klb 13 G. The elements of the Project, as described in the Conditional Use Permit were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1995 and the Addendum adopted on November 18, 1997. H. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. I. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. J. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR. K. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR. L. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. M. There is no new information since the certification of the FE1R which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Section 3. Eixtdinga. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for the Conditional Use Permit; to wit: 1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project meets the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan, is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the Westside Specific Plan and the applicable sections of the City's Development Code. 2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the natore, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the Westside Specific Plan and the applicable sections of the City's Development Code. The uses on-site will be compatible with each other in terms of intensity of use, scale and design. The uses proposed are consistent with the Westside R:\STAFFRFI~92pA97.PCI 12/10/97k~ Specific Plan and are allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. There is adequate buffering between those uses on-site and those uses which are adjacent (off-site). 3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the Westside Specific Plan and the applicable sections of the City's Development Code. The uses on-site will be compatible with each other in terms of intensity of use, scale and design. The uses proposed are consistent with the Westside Specific Plan and are allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. There is adequate buffering between those uses on-sit~ and those uses which are adjacent (off-site). 4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project as designed and conditioned will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 5. The decision to conditionally approve the application is based upon substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. The Commission has received a copy of the Staff Report which includes the ne~ssary analysis, findings and Conditions of Approval. In addition, the Commission has previously reviewed and recommended approval of an EIR and Addendure to the EIR, both of which were certified/adopted by the City Council and which addressed the impacts of this project on the environment and the necessary mitigation measures. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit) for to permit the design, construction and operation of a total of 203,3130 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters and shops and associated improvements (bardscape, parking and landscaping) on 16.5 acres located west of Old Town Temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-310-013, 940-310-044, 940-31{M)45, 940-310-1M7, 940-310-048, 940- 320-001,940-320-002, 940-320-003, and subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a pan hereof. R:XSTAFFRPT~92PA97.PC1 12110/97 lifo Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of December, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFF that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of December, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:XSTAFFRPI~92PA97.PC1 12/10/97klb 16 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFR~T~92PA~7.PC1 12/lO/97klb 17 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Desctiplion: The design, construction end operation of a total of 203,300 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters and shops and associated improvements (herdscape, paring and landscaping) on 16.5 acres Assessor's Parcel No.: 940-310-013, 940-310-044, 940-310-045, 940-310-047, 940-310-048, 940-320-001,940-320-002, 940-320-003 Approval Date: Expiration Date: 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 Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. 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 shall be void by reason of failure of condition. General Requirements The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0392 is for the design, construction and operation of a total of 203,300 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters and shops and associated improvements (hardscape, parking and landscaping) on 16.5 acres. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. R:\STAPPRPT~92PA97.PCI 12/lO/97klb 18 This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan) and Exhibit E (Plaza Plan), or as amended by these conditions. Bicycle racks shall be provided in conformance with the Westside Specific Plan. Architectural features which include advertising shall only be allowed to advertise items which historically tie into the architecture upon which these architectural features are located. Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E (Plaza Plan) and Exhibit F (Landscape Plan), or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by these conditions. All buildings shall comply with the intent of the materials identified on Exhibit H (Typical Elevations). Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I (color and material book), or as amended by these conditions. 10. All conditions of approval for Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) shall apply to this project, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans, for all slope areas created as a result of the grading operation, shall be submitted to the Community Development Del~artment - Planning Division for review and approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). R:\STAFFRPT~!~pAg'7.PCI 12/10/~'/klb 19 d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 12. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to guarantee the installation of plantings and irrigation for all slope areas in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 13. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. The applicant shall apply for a Minor Exception, for approval by the Planning Manager, for a reduction in the amount of parking required per the Westside Specific Plan. 15. All slope landscaping and irrigation shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. 16. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. In addition, all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the corner landscape and monumentation features shall be included on the plans. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 17. No building permit shall be issued for any building traversing a parcel line. 18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 19. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 20. An application for signage or a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. R:\STAFFRFI~392PA97.!t~CI 12/10/97 klb 21. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 22. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 23. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 24. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the international Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning ." 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. 25. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the maintenance of plantings for one year, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 26. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 27. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 28. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 29. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California R:~STAFFRPT~92PAg?.PCl 12/lO/~Tklb Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 30. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 31. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 33. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 34. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 35. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 36. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 37. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 38. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 39. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 40. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 41. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 42. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 43. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. FIRE DEPARTMENT 44. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy and use and Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 45. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,500 R:\STAFFRPT~3~2PA~7.P~I 12/10/9'7 k]b 22 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A). The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 ~" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2). Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (UFC sec 902 and Ord. 95-15). Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord. 95-15). Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4). Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ). Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3). R:~STAFR~PT~3e~2PA~7.1~CI 12/10/97 klb 23 54. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15). 55. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system(s) in the following buildings: B, C, D, F-l, F-2, F-3, G, I and J. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15). 56. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system(s) monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10). 57. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4). 58. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4). 59. Provide a four-hour area separation wall without any penetrations or openings with a parapet as required by the Uniform Fire Code Appendix IlIA Sec 4, to limit separate fire areas, between building F-1 (Diner) and building F-2 (Celebrity Theater). 60. Building F-1 is over the allowable square footage for a type VN construction, provide an two hour area separation wall as required by the Uniform Building Code for allowable floor area. 61. Building F-3 (Honky-Tonk Music Theater) and building F-2 (Celebrity Theater) provide a four hour area separation wall as required by the Uniform Building Code for the separation mixed types of construction. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subiect the project to further review and may require revision. R:~STAFFRFI'x392PA97.PC1 12/10/97klb 24 General Requirements 62. A Grading Permit for rough and/or precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 63. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 64. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 65. All roadway, slope and utility easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 66. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 67. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the following public/private improvements within 18 months in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Western Bypass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) from the intersection of Front Street and State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, landscaped median and parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights). improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. Vincent Moraga Drive (78 feet full width right-of-way) extension to south of its current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor and restriping of the existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road to accommodate the proposed improvements. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. In relation to the above item, Ridge Park Drive "T" intersection configuration with Vincent Moraga Drive. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. R:~STAFFP, P'D392pAg'Y.PCI 12/10/97klb 25 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. First Street (78 feet full width right-of-way) extension from Pujol Street west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. Affect the full improvements of the Main Street extension from Pujol Street west to the project site's proposed escalators for the pedestrian connection. f. Storm drain facilities within the road right-of-way. g. Landscaping (slopes and parkways). h. Erosion control and slope protection. i. Sewer and domestic water systems located within the road right-of-way. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. The impact of the site to any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and to any adjacent floodways and necessary protection mitigation measures shall be identified. Adequacy of capacity of R:\STAFFRPTX392PAeJ7.PCl 12/10/97klb 26 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. existing and proposed downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Caltrans Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. R:%STAFFRPT~92PA97.PCI 12/10/97kJb ~)7 81. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed "Western bypass Corridor and Vincent Moraga Drive" in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 82. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 83. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 84. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A, 208, and 401 (curb and sidewalk). C$ Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance No. 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. f$ Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under-sidewalk drains. 85. Private roads MUST be designed by the engineer of record, reviewed, and approved by the Department of Public Works to meet City Public Road Standards or otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. This should include but may not be limited to: R:\STAFFRPT~92PA97.PCI 12/10/97klb 28 a. Minimum paved road widths of 32 feet within adequate right-of-ways or easements. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. b. Knuckles being required at 90° 'bends' in the road. c. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards. d. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. e. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required. 90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a minimum safe distance from intersections. g. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90'). Concentrated on-site runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 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. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and City attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be submitted to the following Engineering conditions: a. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the Developer°s sole cost and expense. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions R:~STAFFRFI~392PA97.PCI 12110/9? k~b 29 as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and related facilities. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the Owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. All parkways, open areas, on-site slopes and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. ii. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map, or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 93. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 94. The Developer shall complete the following infrastructure improvements prior to issuance of any occupancy: Western Bypass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) shall be constructed from the intersection of Front Street and State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, landscaped median and parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights). R:~TAFFRFF~92pAg'7,PCI 12/10/9'7klb ~0 Vincent Moraga Drive (78 feet full width right-of-way) shall be extended south of its current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. The existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road shall be restriped to accommodate the proposed improvements. In relation to the above item, Ridge Park Drive shall form (be reconstructed to form) a "T" intersection with Vincent Moraga Drive. ~ (78 feet full width right-of-way) from Pujol Street shall be extended west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. A traffic signal warrant analysis (utilizing criteria established by the State of California Department of Transportation) indicates that the First Street/Western By0ass Corridor intersection shall be signalized. It is recommended, therefore, that traffic volumes be monitored at this location to determine the precise scheduling of this installation by the Developer. Moreover, when constructed this traffic signal shall be interconnected with the traffic signal proposed at the Front Street/State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor intersection. A traffic signal at the First Street/Western Bypass Corridor intersection and interconnection with the traffic signal proposed at the Front Street/State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor intersection. The applicant shall enter into an Agreement and post securities for the construction of interim improvements to the Rancho California Road/Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange as follows: At the Rancho California Road/I-15 northbound on ramps, on the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or re-stripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate left turn lane at the I-15 south on ramp, one through lane, one optional through right turn lane and one right turn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right turning traffic onto the I-15 north on ramp, widening and/or re-striping may be required just north of Rancho California Road. These two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the mainline of I-15 north. Similar widening and/or restriping shall be provided on the eastbound intersection approach at the Rancho California Road/I-15 south ramps. The agreement shall require that construction of the interim improvements commence within twenty-four (24) months of issuance of any grading permit. Negotiable securities in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and an amount acceptable to the City Engineer shall be provided by the applicant guaranteeing the faithful performance of this obligation. Should the City proceed with construction of the ultimate improvements for the interchange ahead of the applicant, then the applicant shall contribute to the City's improvement project an amount equal to the cost of the interim improvements. Applicant shall contribute their share within thirty (30) days of the City's award of the construction contract for the ultimate improvements. The applicant's contribution to the construction of the ultimate improvements shall relieve the R:\STAFFRPTL392PA97.PC1 12/lO/~Tklb 31 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100, 101. 102. 103. 104. applicant from all responsibility regarding the timing for completion of the improvements at I-15 and Rancho California Road. The Developer shall affect construction of full improvements of the Main Street extension from Pujol Street west to the project site's proposed escalators for the pedestrian connection. Sufficient parking for a local transit system shall be provided to satisfy the parking demands of the project, All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City Standards and in compliance with the site traffic impact analyses, including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, drainage facilities, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. All traffic signal, traffic signal interconnection and signing and striping shall be installed per the approved traffic signal, traffic signal interconnection and signing and striping plan, respectively. The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersection and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance as directed by the Department of Public Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT~92PA97.PC1 12/10?97k1~ 32 OTHER AGENCIES 105. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated November 19, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 106. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated November 19, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant Name R:XSTAFFIL'q~92PA97.PCI 12/10/~7 klb ~ TO: FROM County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: November 19, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan fi/;GREG DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO PA97-0392 1. Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No PA97-0392 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the Califomia Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. GD:cr (909) 285-8980 Water November 19, 1997 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY OLD TOWN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER APNS 940-310-013, 940-320-001, AND 940-320-002 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements (including all in-tract facilities) between RCWD and the property owner. It may be necessary for the properly owner to extend existing District water facilities to provide domestic/commercial and fire protection services to this development. Owner should contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. In response to your request, RCWD has provided the attached information. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 97/SB:eb300/F012cJFCF Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician Attachment ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PARKING STUDY UPDATE LETTER R:\STAFFRPTL392pA97,PCI 12/lO/97klb :3'4 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS · PLANNEr~ 2300 E. KATELEA AVE. · SUITE 275 "" ANAHEIM. CA 92806'6047 · [714) ~78-8110 · FAX (714) 978-1109 November 4, 1997 Zev Buffman President Temecula Entertainment 41934 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex Phase II Parking Study Update Letter Dear Mr. Buffman: In response to the City of Temeeula Planning Department's letter dated October 16, 1997, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has reviewed the current plans for Phase II of the Old Town Entertainment Center relative to on-site parking needs. Specifically, this parking study update includes: An evaluation of daily parking demand for each land use component included in the project; An assessment of parking utilization characteristics and parking accumulation for individual components of the project; An analysis of shared parking potential and maximum parking accumulation for the project based on the composite parking utilization characteristics of all land use components combined; and A comparison of the assessed maximum parking accumulation for the project with both the Westside Specific Plan parking requirement and the parking provisions per the current Phase II project plans. AJ..~ANY, NY o ANAt-EIM, CA · ATLANTA, CA. · C.aJl~O. ['GYPT . CHARtESTON. SC · COLUrVBA. SiC., COLUIqltJS. OH ,. D~S MOINES. IA ,, FALLS ~H, VA · HCt,IG K~_jNG EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY Zev Buffman November 4, 1997 Page 2 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES WSA's parking study update was initiated with a review of the previous parking study prepared for the project by KAKU Associates in October, 1996. The analysis methodologies applied in this update study are consistent with the approach used in the KAKU study. In order to simplify the parking study analysis and City staffs review of the study findings, the WSA analysis is focused on the "peak activity season" conditions, as previously identified in the KAKU study. The basic steps involved in the parking study update included: I. Definition of the peak attendance season for the Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex; 2. Definition of facility capacities and typical peak occupancy factors; 3. Estimation of dally attendance and vehicle trip projections; 4. Facility operating assumptions; 5. Estimation of peak parking demand and parking accumulation by individual project land use component; 6. Estimation of shared parking, peak cumulative parking demand and maximum parking accumulation for the entire project; and 7. Assessment of the adequacy of current project parking provisions. The following sections document the findings of each step of the parking analysis. Peak A~endance Season In the KAKU study, peak attendance for the Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex was determined to occur during the summer season. For the current Phase II project analysis, two peak season scenarios are evaluated: Zev Buffman November 4, 1997 Page 3 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES peak season weekday - which is represented by a Friday with single performances occurring in each of the four major venues (e.g. Wild West Arena, Celebrity Theater, and Western Dinner Theater, and Studio Theater). peak season weekend - which is represented by a Saturday with single performances occurring in the Arena, Celebrity Theater, and Western Dinner Theater and two performances in the Studio Theater. It is estimated that each of these peak activity scenarios could occur between 15 and 20 times per year. Facility Capacities and Typical Peak Occupancies Current project land use, as defined by Temecula entertainment, is summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that the recent traffic study update included a facility, referred to as the "Palace Theater." This facility is no longer being considered as part of the project. The proposed capacity and/or size of each project land use component is given in Table 1. It is important to note that the Hotel is assumed to provide separate parking for hotel guests. Parking demand for hotel guests is therefore not included in this analysis of on-site parking needs. Typical peak season occupancies of the four principal venues were identified in the KAKU study based on market studies of similar projects. WSA has applied the same peak season occupancy factors in the parking analysis for all of the facilities except the Wild West Arena. For purposes of adding additional conservatism to the parking analysis, WSA has used a higher typical peak season occupancy for the Wild West Arena. For the weekday scenario, the occupancy factor has been increased from 70 percent to 75 percent. For the Weekend scenario the occupancy factor has been increased from 70 percent to 85 percent. For both scenarios, the Celebrity Theater and the Studio Theater are assumed to have a peak season occupancy factor of 90 percent. The Western Music Dinner Theater is assumed to have an occupancy factor of 95 percent for both scenarios. Zev Buffman November 4, 1997 Page 4 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES It should be noted that in the project traffic study, some of the land uses within the project were assessed to be incidental or passive in nature and are not expected to contribute significantly to the primary attraction of vehicle trips to the project. These include the chapel, Roy Rogers Experience/Museum (and down-sized virtual reality venue), and informal/incidental entertainment components of the dining and retail core. As described to us, the chapel located on the central courtyard portion of the project site, would serve as an informal place of rest and self-reflection/meditation for visitors. The Roy Rogers Experience/museum and virtual reality ride as well as other general entertainment components of the project are considered as a secondary-level attractions available to visitors attending the primary events/shows, dining establishments and retail shopping attractions. Based on similar entertainment-oriented projects, these secondary-level uses become incidental to the primary attractions. Traffic generation for these uses is considered insignificant relative to traffic generation for the primary attractions. Daily Attendance and Vehicle Trip Projections Daily attendance for the four principal facilities is essentially the product of the seating capacity, number of daily shows and typical occupancy factor. A summary of the dally calculated daily attendance for these facilities is given in Table 2. Daily visitation estimates for the Food and Wine Court and Dining Establishment are based on average turnover of the available seating. For the weekday scenario, seating turnover is conservatively estimated to average 6 times per seat. For the weekend scenario, a higher average seating turnover rate of 8 times per seat has been used for the Food and Wine Court and 7 times per seat for the Dining Establishment. The resulting peak attendance projections are given in Table 2. Daily visitation for the retail component of the project is based on standard Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates for specialty commercial. These trip rates are expressed in one-way vehicle trips per thousand square feet of floor area. The resultant number of gross one-way vehicle trips is given in Table 2. Vehicle trip demand is defined in terms of one-way trips for use in the analysis of vehicle arrival and departure rates and the resulting parking accumulation. Zev Buffman November 4, 1997 Page 5 Dally attendance for the administrative and back-of-house functions of the project are based on the estimated number of employees required to staff activities involved in each of the event scenarios. Peak staffing requirements are estimated by Temeenia Entertainment to be 325 employees for the weekday scenario and 500 employees for the weekend scenario. Daily one-way vehicle trips are derived from person attendance/visitation estimates based on the average vehicle occupancy rates and vehicle mode of arrival (e.g. bus or private automobile). The vehicle mode of arrival for patrons is conservatively estimated to be only 5 percent by bus and 95 percent by auto. All employees are assumed to arrive by auto. Average vehicle occupancy for patrons arriving by auto, is estimated to be 3 passengers per vehicle. Autos used by employees, are assumed to have an average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 passengers per vehicle. Buses transporting patrons to the project are assumed to have an average occupancy of 25 passengers per vehicle. This occupancy rate, which is lower than the standard 30 passengers per vehicle rate offered by most tour/chartered buses, recognizes that some micro-bus type vehicles may be used. In the case of the Food and Wine Court, Dining Establishment, and Retail components of the project, the project Traffic Study included a conservative estimate that 50 percent of the trips generated by these uses would actually originate from within the project or Old Town. In most similar projects, these uses function as ammenities to visitors of the primary event venues and rarely attract significant trips on an individual basis. The parking analysis conservatively assumes that 50 percent of estimated trip attractions for the Food and Wine Court and Retail components would be satisfied from outside the project. In the case of the Dining Establishment, the parking analysis includes a more conservative external trip estimate of 80 percent for the weekday scenario, and 60 percent for the weekend scenario. Project-related vehicle parking demand will occur both on-site and off-site (e.g. in Old Town) according to the estimated traffic approach distribution. The revised traffic study for the project estimated that 92 percent of the traffic would access the immediate project site while 8 percent would enter Old Town and walk onto the project site. All bus parking is assumed to occur on-site. Zev Buffman November 4, 1997 Page 6 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES The final adjustment to dally vehicle trips for the major event facilities which are made to on- site parking areas is a reduction due to trips which would originate from the on-site hotel. The reduction assumes 80 percent occupancy of the hotel and 75 percent of the occupied hotel room guests attending one of the scheduled events. Table 2 documents the derivation of daily vehicle demand estimates and the number of vehicles estimated to park on-site and in Old Town. Table 3 provides a summary of the on-site and Old Town daily parking demand. Facility Operating Assumptions WSA reviewed event schedules and duration of events at the major venues with Temecula Entertainment. These schedules, which we understand would be controlled by the project operator/manager, have a direct affect on the peak parking demand and maximum parking accumulation periods. Current event/show programm'mg for the project generally schedule most peak season weekday events and shows commencing at 7:00 p.m. (Studio Theater) and 7:30 p.m. (Arena, Celebrity Theater and Western Dinner Theater). For the peak season weekend scenario, the events/shows would be scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. (Studio Theater), 3:00 p.m. (Western Dinner Theater), and 3:30 p.m. (Arena and Celebrity Theater). The duration of shows/events varies from 2 hours (Studio Theater and Westem Dinner Theater) to 3 hours (Celebrity Theater). Arena shows would typically be 2 1/2 hours in duration. It is assumed that the project would be open to visitors generally between 9:00 a.m. and approximately 11:00 p.m. Staff may be on-site before and after the normal hours for the general public, Peak Parking Demand and Maximum Parking Accumulation Vehicle trips generated by each land use component on a dally basis were distributed throughout the day based on the expected pattern of vehicle arrivals and departures. Note that this represents the distribution of vehicle trips which originate from and depart to locations off- site and outside the Old Town area. Zev Buffman November 4, 1997 Page 7 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Table 4a provides a summary of the peak season weekday scenario distribution of vehicle arrivals at the project site for each individual land use component. The estimated distribution of departing vehicles for the weekday scenario, is provided in Table 4b. Similar vehicle arrival and departure schedules are provided in Tables 5a and 5b respectively, for the peak season weekend scenario. Periods of peak parking demand can be determined from Tables 4a and 5a for each project land use component and for the project as a whole. The analysis indicates that peak parking demand for the project occurs when parking demand for the Arena is at its peak. On the peak season weekday, peak parking demand for the project occurs between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. when 634 vehicles arrive on-site. For the peak season weekend scenario, peak parking demand occurs between 3:00 and 3:00 p.m. when 668 vehicles arrive on-site. Peak departure times for the project are at 10:30 to 11:00 p.m. for the weekday and 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. for the weekend. At these times, between 624 and 694 vehicles depart from the site. Parking accumulation can be estimated by comparing the number of vehicle arrivals and departures for each 30-minute analysis period. Early in the day, vehicle arrivals are higher than vehicle departures. During this period, the number of parked cars increases or accumulate. The difference in arrivals and departures for any given period represents the net number of vehicles which either add to the number of vehicles parked on-site or reduce the number of vehicles on-site. Towards the end of the day, vehicle departures are higher than vehicle arrivals. During this period, the number of cars parked diminishes. Tables 6 and 7 present summaries of on-site parking accumulation for the peak season weekday and weekend scenarios respectively. The accumulation of parked vehicles is provided in Tables 6 and 7 for the individual project land use components as well as for the entire project. The degree to which the maximum parking accumulation times are offset for the individual project land use components, represents the opportunity for shared parking. While, parking accumulation for the major venues will be peaking at approximately the same time, the more evenly distributed parking accumulation for the Food and Wine Court and Retail allow for some shared parking to occur. Additionally, if parking accumulation for individual uses show low peaking characteristics, then the parking supply will be utilized more efficiently. Zev Buffman November 4, 1997 Page 8 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES The parking accumulation analysis shows that for the peak season weekday scenario, maximum parking accumulation would occur between 7:30 and 8:30 p.m., when 1,971 vehicles would be parked on-site. For the peak season weekend scenario, maximum accumulation is estimated to occur between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m., when a maximum total of 2,351 vehicles would be parked on-site. Parking Needs Assessment The current site plan for Phase II provides a total of 2,583 parking spaces while the Specific Plan or City code requirement indicates a need for 2,755 parking spaces. Based on the findings of the parking demand and parking accumulation analysis, the current site plan provides 232 parking spaces (9,9 percent) above the 2,351 parking spaces estimated for maximum peak season weekend parking accumulation. For the peak season weekday condition, the currently planned parking supply offers 612 parking spaces (31,1 percent) in excess of the_l,971 required parking spaces. The analysis findings indicate that the current plan provided adequate parking for land nses proposed for project Phase II. The excess parking will help to insure that even under unusually high attendance conditions for the planned events, there will be surfrelent on-site parking. If expansion of the currently planned seating capacity for the Arena is proposed in the future, parking needs should be re-assessed based on actual on-site parking conditions experienced once the project is implemented. Based on the current parking analysis, the proposed addition of 1,200 seats to the arena would increase the on-site weekday and weekend parking accumulation by 264 and 299 vehicles respectively. Additional on-site parking could be made available to project patrons if a portion of the project employees were to be provided off-site remote parking with shuttle service. Based on discussions with Temecula Entertainment, the minimum administrativeNIP parking necessary on-site is approximately 80 spaces. If on-site employee parking were limited to 80 spaces, approximately 100 additional weekday parking spaces and 230 additional weekend spaces would be opened up for patron use. Zev Buffman November 4, 1997 Page 9 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 978-8110. Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Robert A, Davis Principal Transportation Planner RAD:rad Attachments 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 o o o 0 o ~' o t~ ~._ _1 ..~ 0 d Table 2 Daily Vehicle Demand Estimate Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex Pmiect Land Use Component Wild West Arena: Seating Capacity Shows Per Day Typical Peak Occupancy Typical Peak Attendance Person Tt~ps By Bus (5%) Person Tdp5 By Auto Vehicle Trips By Bus (25 persons per vehicle) Vehicle Tdps By Auto (3 persons per vehicte) Autos Parked in Old Towfi (8%) Autos parked On-Site (92%) Buses Parked On-Site (100%) Total Vehicle Parked On-Site Estimated Vehicles Parked At Hotel Net Vehicle Parking Demand Celebrity Theater: Seating Capacity Shows Per Day Typical Peak Occupancy Typical Peak Attendance Person Trips By Bus (5%) person Trips By Auto (95%) Vehicle Trips By Bus (25 parsons per vehicle) Vehicle Trips By Auto (3 persons per vehicle) Autos parked in Old Tow~ (8%) Autos Parked On-Site (92%) Buses parked On-Site (100%) T6tal Vehicle Parked On-site Estimated Vehicles Parked At Hotel Net Vehicle parking Demand Studio Theater: Seating Capacity Shows Per Day Typical Peak Occupancy Typical Peak Attendance Person Trips By Bus (5%) Person Tdps By Auto (95%) Vehicle Trips By Bus (25 persons per vehicle) Vehicle Tdps By Auto (3 persons per vehicle) Autos Parked in Old Town (8%) Autos Parked On-Site (92%) Buses Parked On-site (100%) Total Vehicie Parked On-Site Estimated Vehicles Parked At Hotel Net Vehicle Paddng Demand Western Music Dinner Theater: Seating Capacity Shows Per Day Typical peak Occupancy Typical Peak Attendance Person Trips By Bus (5%) Person Tdps By Auto (95%) Vehicle Trips By Bus (25 persons per vehicle) Vehicle Tdpe By Auto (3 persons per vehicle) Autos Parked in Old Tow~ (8%) Autos Parked On-site (92%) Buses Parked On-site (100%) Total Vehicle Parked On-Site Estimated Vehicles Parked At Hotel Net Vehicle On*Site Parking Demand EventWeekdaY EventWeekend 4,800 4,800 75% 65% 3,600 4,080 180 204 3,420 3,876 8 9 91 103 1,049 1,189 8 9 85 85 972 1,113 2,200 2,200 90% 90% 1,980 1,980 99 99 4 4 50 577 577 4 4 581 581 47 47 534 534 300 300 90% 90% 270 540 14 27 257 513 86 171 7 14 79 157 1 2 80 159 7 14 73 145 500 500 95% 95% 475 475 24 24 451 451 139 139 140 140 129 129 Table 2 (Cont.) Daily Vehicle Demand Estimate Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex Project Land Use Component Food and Wine Court: Searing Capacity Typical Peak Occupancy Typical Peak Attendance Gross Vehicle Tripe (3 persons per vehicle) Internal trip Adjustment (reduction) Vehicles Parked in Old Town (8%) Vehicles Parked On-Site (92%) EventWeekday 250 95% 6 1425 475 50% 238 219 EventWeekend 250 8 19oo 634 317 25 292 Dining Establishment Seating capacity Typical Peek Occupancy Average Searing Turnover Typical Peak Attendance Gross Vehicle Tdps (3 persons per vehicle) Internal trip Adjustment (reduction) Net External Trips Vehicles Parked in Old Tovm (8%) Vehicles Parked On-Site (92%) 85 90% 6 459 153 20% 122 85 90% 7 536 179 40% 107 9 98 Retail: Floor Area (square feet) Vehicle Trip Rate (one-way tripe per 1,000 square feet) Gro~s Vehicle Trip (one-way) Internal Tdp Adjustn~ent (reduddon) Net External tips Vehicles Parked in Old Town (8%) Vehicles Parked On-Site (92%) 56,000 840 50% 420 34 386 56,000 20 50% 560 45 Administration/Back Of House: Assumed Staff/VIP Vehicle Tripe (1.2 persons per vehicle) Vehicle Parked On-Site 325 271 5O0 417 4~7 > o C 0 E ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ADOPTED ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR FOR THE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT R:\STAFFRFI~gZPA97.PC1 12/10/97klb 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS Recommendation for Adopting an Addendure ............................. 15 Initial Environmental Study Checldist for Addendum ....................... 16 Determination Evaluation of Addendure Issues Traffic Study .................................................. 17 Traffic Study dated August 11, 1997 Letter from WSA dated August 28, 1997 Letter from WSA dated September 21, 1997 Letter from WSA dated October 1, 1997 Visual Simulations .............................................. 18 R:XSTAFFP, PI~298PA97.PC1 10/2/97vgw 44 RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM R:XSTAPPRPT~ggPA~7.PCI 9/26/97 mf 15 Recommendation for Adoptin~ an Addendure In 1995 the City ofTemecula approved the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project, including the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) and certified a Final EIR as the appropriate CEQA determination for the project. The project envisioned about 12-14 entertainment venues as pan of a western themed entertainment complex and suppor~ commercial and residential uses that would be constructed in two phases Substantial infrastructure improvements were also required to support the project, including construction of several bridges, a major portion of the Western By-pass road, and improvements to interchanges between major local roads and Interstate 15. Over the past two years, the project proponent, Temecula Entertainment Ventures, Inc. (TEVI), has evolved the design of the project from its original design concept with approximately 1,045,500 square feet (~2) of commercial facilities to a current design concept with approximately 459,700 Along with this reduction in the number of initial facilities that are proposed to be constructed, the TEVI proposes to focus all initial development in the WSP area. Because of these changes, the City decided to reevaluate the potential environmental effects of the current design concept which is being reviewed for approval as a Development Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 11) provide that an agency shall prepare an Addendure to a certified EIIR. when some changes or additions are necessary and where no substantial changes occur in the project. Section 15164 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." To ascertain whether the conditions in t 5 t 62 apply to tile current design concept for the proposed project, the city prepared an Initial Study to evaluate each environmental issue and substantiate the need for either a subsequent EiR or an Addendure to tile certified EIR The attached Initial Study indicates that for all environmental issues, the physical changes of the project are either reduced compared to the project approved in 1995, or are directly comparable to the impact forecasts contained in the certified EIR. Two technical study updates, for traffic and aesthetic impacts, were prepared to verify the conclusions presented in the attached Initial Study Based on these findings, the City intends to adopt this Addendum to the certified Final ErR. for the Old Town Redevelopment Project as the appropriate CEQA determination for the Development Plan and related project approvals (such as tile grading plan) currently before the City. The Addendum consists of this recommendation and sunrotary of findings; tile Initial Study substantiating the findings; the technical data and materials prepared in support of this environmental finding; and the various engineering and technical reports submitted in fulfillment of conditions of approval and mitigation measures established as part of the original decision and certified EIR. If the Development Plan and related implementation plans are approve& the City will file a Notice of Determination for the Addendure following the final hearing on this matter INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CHECKLIST FOR ADDENDUM R:\STAFFRFI'~298PA~7.PC1 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist for Addendum 6 7. 8. Project Title: Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecul~ 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan, (909) 694-6400 Project Location: The Westside Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 153.1 acres south and west of Pujol Street in the City of Temecula. The mapped location of the proposed project areas can be found on the Murrieta and Temecula 7.5' topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey, at Latitude 33° 28' North and Longitude 1170 09' West. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: TEVI, 41934 Main Street, Temecula 92590 General Plan Designation: Westside Specific Plan Zoning: Westside Specific Plan Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessaD'.) The original project consisted of a conceptual description of the facilities and their proposed activi~, patterns. The Final EIR, Chapter 3, contains the detailed descriptions of the proposed facilities and activities. The following summary is based on Chapter 3 of the Final EIR and the project sumraary contained in the adopted Statement of Overriding considerations. The facilities consist of: Cabaret Theaters: Two cabaret theaters are proposed to be located in the OTSP core area. Both cabaret theaters would be constructed during Phase I of the project. One cabaret is proposed to contain about 27,000 squaxe feet (ft2) and 40 feet high and the second theater is proposed to contain about 45,000 t~2. These cabaxets are designed to entertain a maximum of about 600 and 900 people per event, respectively. Each show is expected to last for approximately two hours and it is initially anticipated that the theater will hold 13 shows per week Western Saloons: Two saloons are proposed to be located in the OSTP core area. Both saloons would be constructed during Phase I of the project and each saloon is proposed to contain approximately 10,000 fi2 in a one-two story structure Each saloon will be designed to entertain .approyarnately 350 persons. 250 at tables and about 100 at or adjacent to the bar. A small stage will be provided for ~?icaI bar entertainment, such as dancing girls~ Staged bar fights, shootouts and other entertainment will be provided. The saloons will operate every day of the week 8.d. 8.L 8.g 8.h. Opera House: An opera house is proposed to be located in the OTSP. It would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. 'Fne opera house is proposed to be a two story structure with the proseenium approximately 50 feet high. The opera house is expected to encompass 85,000 R: of space with a building footprint of approyamately 75,000:. Estimated seating capacity will be 1,400 persons on the first floor and 800 seats in the balcony. A television and radio studio will occupy approxirnatebI 2,500 ft: within or adjacent to the opera house. It is anticipated that the opera house will have 13 performances per week. Showboat: A western showboat facility with a showroom is proposed to be located in the OTSP core area~ This facility would be implemented during Phase 2 of the project when adequate demand for additional entermmment spacejustities its construction. The showboat will be atwo-story structure, with the smokestacks approxunately 30 feet high. It is proposed to be approxamately 21,000 ft: and it would have the capacity to entertain an estimated 600 persons per event, seven days per week. Wild West Arena: A 4,800 seat tent designed wild west arena that will be similar to Buffalo Bill's touting westem tent show is proposed to be located just west of OTSP core area within the Westside Specific Plan area. It would be constructed during Phase I of the project. This is an outdoor/indoor facility that will operate all year but have a 16 week summer "high" season. The arena will encompass approximately 175,000 square feet and the tent poles will raise the height of the facility to approxamately 85-90 feet above the ground surface. During the 36 week regular season two shows per week are expected to be performed, primarily on the weekends. During the arena high season it is emmated that several shows will be performed per day, primarily on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Virtual Reality Pavilion(s): Three vutual reality pavilions with two theaters in each are proposed for development within the OTSP. One pavilion with two theaters will be constructed as part of Phase I of the project. The other two pavilions will be implemented as part of Phase 2 when sufficient demand justifies their construction. The theaters will be constructed in the Plan core area. Each theater will seat about 50 persons. Ma.ximum occupancy of these two-story structures (height about 25-30 feet) is emmated to be about 200 persons. Each pavilion will encompass about 19,000 ft: for a total of -57,000 ft2 if all three pavilions are implemented. Each show requires about five to six minutes with the theater portion running about tiuee to four minutes. Performances would be continuous after the facility opens each day. "Ouick Draw" Competition Area: In the Old Town core area a plaza or town square will be constructed which is proposed to contain a quick draw competition area. This facility will be constructed as part of phase 1 and is proposed to encompass approximately 8,000 It" outdoors in or adjacent to the plaza This will be a westemized "police academy" ~Je of facility where an individual will walk through an outdoor maze of targets. Ten people can participate in each five minute tap and scores will be posted on a large electrome board. HOtel: One major hotel is proposed for construction in the vicinity of the wild west arena within the Westside Specific Plan. The initial configuration of the hotel is proposed to be four stories in height and provide a total of 350 rooms. It is proposed to be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. A 5.7 acre pad will be provided for this facility and it is proposed to contain approximately 300,000 ~: of building space. The hotel may be expanded with I50 additional rooms during Phase 2 if sufficient demand justifies such an expansion. The hotel is proposed to include approximately 50,000 .ft2 of related retail space when constructed in Phase I and the range of retail uses includes restaurants, service commercial uses, and retail commercial uses. An additional 50,000 ft: of retail space may be constructed dunng Phase 2 if demand for the commercial capaciDs, is sufficient. R ~FORa\ISXCEQA IES 9/2~97 klb 2 8.i. Retail Commercial: The City anticipates 50,000 to 100,000 t~2 of the retail commercial area identified in the OTSP will ultimately be developed in Old Town to support the entertainment facihties/activities. It is estimated that 30,000 ft~ will be developed during Phase I as a component of this project. No specific locations have been selected for these retail activities. Visitors Center/Ticket Office: One or more visitors centers/ticket office facilities will be located in the downtown area for ticket purchases and to provide information. This facility/facilities may encompass up to 5,500 fi: of area. It will be open during normal business hours and during everungs when events are scheduled at the entertainment complex. 8.k. Administrative Space: An additional 20,000 square feet of space for administrative offices and back- of-house areas may be constructed to support the project. Some of this space may be located within the opera house facility. and others on the second floor of other structures or within independent structures. As originally envisioned, the Temecula entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Town portion of the City. and within the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Westem Bypass corridor, southwest of Old Town. These two development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were approved for a mixture of commercial entertainment facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and residenual uses by the City in 1995, as outlined above. The actual construction of the entertainment venue has been delayed for a vaneS, of reasons, including delays due to legal challenges to the project and the efforts to justify funding of the extensive infrastructure that must be installed when the project is developed. A few of the major infrastructure components include: the Westem By-pass and First Street bridges over Mumeta Creek; installation of the required paved section of the Westem By-pass from the Front Street/Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 interchange to Vincent Moraga Drive: and alI of the water, sewer, and other utility. infrastructure systems required to support the facilities permitted by the Westside Specific Plan. In order to obtain the significant funcling corrtrmtments required to construct the entertainment venue in the City in conformonce with the City's 1995 approvals, the project has evolved from the original concept as outlined above. to a current concept that has been designed to be consistent w~th the Westside Specific Plan, yet reflect the fundamental project components that are necessary to attract the substantial funds required to build all facilities, including the extensive infrastructure required to support the project. As originally envisioned, the Temecula entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Town portion of the City and within the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Western Bypass corridor. southwest of Old Town. Tbese m'o development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were approved for a mix~ture of commercial entertainment facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and residential uses by the City in 1995. A comparison of the original and proposed design components is presented below Note that certain uses have been transferred from Old Town to Area "A" of the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) as "ancdlary" uses to the hotel and wild west arena. This has been necessary to support the costs of the required infrastructure Improvements defined in the original approvals. It also overcomes the lack of economically viable sites in Old To~ where no specific sims were shown in the original applications because of the difficult' of consolidating adequate building and parking areas. Keep in mind that Phase 1, as defined in the original certified EIR and summarized above, encompassed almost all of the proposed entertamment facilities Phase 2 was proposed to consist of commercial and residential uses as required to support the overall success of the entertainment venue. Table I summarizes the square footage for each proposed entertainment venue facility and other facilities approved by the City. of Temecula, such as the hotel. The square footage of facilities as envisioned in the original design concept and the current design concept are presented below. Where a facility is not shown in the current design concept side of Table 1, it is being deferred to the future as discussed above. Original Design Concept C, Table 1 Square Footage Summary of Entertainment Facilities Current Design Concept Cabaret Theatre (2) 27,000 f12/45,000 Location: Old Town Cabaret Theater/Western Music Dinner Theatre ( 1 ) 20,000 Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area Western Saloon (2) 10,000 x~2 each Location: Old Town Western Saloon/Rockin Rodeo( 1 ) 12,000 ~2 Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area Opera House 75,000 ff building footprint Location: Old Town Opera House/Celebrity Auditorium 50,000 t~2 building footprint Location: ancillary to Hotel in the WSP area Showboat 21,000 ft2 Location: Old Town Showboat (deferred to future) No change at this time No change at this time Wild West Arena 175,000 ~2,85-90 feet height Location: WSP area Wild West Arena 105,000 fi2,75 feet height Location WSP area Virtual Reality Pavilion (3) 19,000 ec2, total 57,000 ft2 Location: Old Town Virtual Reality Experience 7,200 t~2 Location: WSP, a part of the Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Museum, ancillary to Wild West Arena "Quick Draw" Competition Area 8,000 ft: Location: Old Town "Quick Draw" Competition Area (deferred to future) No change at this time No change at this time Hotel 300,000 if2 initial; additional 100,000 et2 for additional 150 rooms when justified in future Location: WSP area Hotel 125,000 t~2, 275 rooms Location: WSP area Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Exhibition -23,000 ft2, including Virtual Reality Experience Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena IC~FOP~MSXCEQA.IIZS 9/22797 lib 4 Hotel Retail Commercial 50,000 It:/50,000 Location: WSP area, ancillary to hotel Retail Commercial 50,000-100,000 Location: Old Town Visitor Cemer/Ticket Office (1 +) 5,500 It2 Location: Old Town Administrative Space 20,000 Location: open Festival Square 20,000 It: Location: Old Town Temecula Wine & Food Exhibition 30,000 it2 Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena Chapel 1,600 Its Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena Hotel Retail Commercial 69,600 its, kiosks, shops, restaurants Location: WSP area, ancillary to hotel Deferred to the Future Visitor Center 2,500 Its Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena Administrative Space Same Location: WSP area, pan of Arena or Theatre Arena Plaza/Sons of the Pioneers Music Plaza Small gazebo stage/-500-1,O00 It2 Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena 9 10 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The Westside Specific Plan area has residential uses to the east and northeast, open space to the northwest, west, southwest and south, and residential uses to the southeast. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g. permits, financing approval or participation agreement.) Permits or other approvals may be required from the State Water Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, San Diego Regional Board, U. S. Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, Metropolitan Water District, Riverside County Flood Control, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Sigm~cant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] [ ] Population and Housing [x] [ ] Geologic Problems [ ] [ ] Water [ ] Ix] Air Quality [ ] [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] [ ] Biological Resources [ ] [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] H~7~rds Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [l I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigm~cant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a si~i~cant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in titis case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [l I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [x] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but these effects 1) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) have been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. The evaluation m this Initial Study, including updated traffic and visual impact analyses, constitute an Addendum to the Final EIR and the analysis in this Addendnm indicates that none of the conditions in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines call for the preparation of a DatT/~,~ ~ For ]SSUES AND SUPPORTING [NFOR},tATION SOURCES 1 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? [l [l Ix] b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [l [] Ix] c, Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity.? I I I] Ix] Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or fanrdands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? I I [ ] [ ] Ix] e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established conunity. (including low-income or rainonly conunity)? [ ] [ ] [ I [xl Evaluation of Addendure Issues; Land use was one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the El?,. All land use impacts, including land use conflicts and consistency with existing General Plan land use designations. are mitigable to a nousi~m~ificant level aller apphcation of mitigation. Land uses within Area A remain consistent with the original uses as outlined below. A review of the proposed current desigt concept indicates that the same mitigation will ensure that all land use impacts are mitigated to a nonsignificant level. The designauon of the open space area reinruns as originally envisioned (all propera/west of the Western By-pass Road). and other potential land use conflicts are reduced even fth-ther than envisioned in the E[R by inclusion of the additional noise attenuation in the design. A/I mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and land use impacts will be reduced to a nonsignificant level. Consistency issues are further addressed in the following evaluation. As originall)' envisioned, the Temecula entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Town portion of file City and vaddn the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Western Bypass corridor. southwest of Old Town These two development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were appmved for a mixture of cmnmercial cntermimnettt facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and residential uses by the City in 1995. As tile City is aware, file actual construction of the entertainment venue has been delayed for a variety of reasons, inclucfing delays due to legal challenges to the pro3ect and tile efforts to justify funding of the extensive infrastructure that must be installed when the project is developed. In order to obtain the significant funding commitments required to construc~ the entertainment venue in the City in conformance witIt the City's 1995 approvals, the project ltas evolved from file original concept as outlined in Attaclanent A, to a current concept that has been designed to be consistent with the Westside Specific Plan. yet reflect the fundamental project components that are necessary to attract the substantial funds required to build all facilities. including the extensive infrastructure required to support the project. To demonstrate consistency of the current design concept for the entertainment venue with the original approvals, pamcularly the Westside Specific Plan, a comparison of the ongifial and proposed design components is presented below. Note that cenmn uses lmve been transferred from Old Town to Area "A' of the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) as "ancillary" uses to the hotel and wild west arena. This has been necessary to support the costs of the required iafrastmcmre improvements defined in the original approvals. As is demonstrated below, the proposed conceptual design now being presented to tile City is fully consistent with the total scope of facilities envisioned and approved in the project original approvals, and even though tile current focus has shifted from Old Town to the WSP area, R ,FOIL~IS/CEQA.IES 9/2Z'97 klb 7 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Unle~ ~ Than Significant Mitigation Signifizant No Impact Inco~orated lmpaa Impact additional facilities remain to be sited in Old Town as demand for additional entertainment facilities evolves in the future. Table L in the project description, summarizes the square footage for each proposed enmrtainznent venue facility. and other facilities approved by the City of Temecula. such as the hotel. The square footage of facilities as envisioned in the original design concept and the current design concept are presented below. Where a facility is not shown in the current design concept side of Table 1, it is being deferred to the future as discussed above. Based on the stunmary provided in Table 1. the total square footage of building space trader the original design concept is 1.045,500 f~, excluding the outdoor facilities such as the "Quick Draw' and Festival Square areas. Of this 1,045,500 ft:, the total square footage permitted within the WSP area in the original concept design and with City approvals is emmated to be about 695,000 ftL including the full 100,000 ft~ of commemial area allocated in Phases 1 and 2 of the hotel and the 20,000 ft~ administrative area. The current design concept encompasses approximately 459,700 ftL including 69,960 ft2 of commercial support uses. Thus, the total square footage of all proposed facilities falls well within the tomt square footage and is approximately 235.300 ft: less than originally authorized by the City when it granted approvals in 1995. Witat are the major differences between the current and original design concept? Perhaps the greatest change is a decision to disaggregate the massing of square footage originally allocated to the hotel and Wild West Arena into several structures. All of the facilities proposed in the current conceptual design are ancillary or supportive to the two primary facilities (hotel and Wild West Arena) that were approved for Area A of the WSP. Some uses have been transferred from the Old Town area. but it is our interpretation that comparable facilities were envisioned in the WSP authorization. such as the auditorium (opera house). wine and food exhibition hall (exhibition uses), and cabaret theatre (dinner theatre) in support of the hotel, and the museum (Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Museum/Exhibition facility) in support of, or as part of the Wild West Arena. Similarly, the approximately 69,600 ft2 of commercial area is consistent with the Phase 1 and 2 allocations of commercial square footage allocated as part of the hotel. Although the original footpnnts of buildings have been altered, the focus on the western theme for the entertainment venue has not changed and by disaggregating the facilities through redesign, the visual impacts of the large hotel and arena structures will be reduced, enhancing the visual setting compared to the original design concept. In particular, the original design concept of rite hotel showed a very large massed visual feature (up to 300.000 ft: in Phase I and an additional 100.000 ft: in Phase 2) and the arena was envisioned as a large, circus/tent-like structure (175,000 ~% xGth stripes. In the desigu concept presently under consideration by to the City. both of thase facilities have been redesigned by creating several structures. thereby reducing the overall visual impact of the project. In addition, by enclosing the arena structures and providing for insulation and climate control, potential noise impacts to residences aloog Pujol have been substantially reduced. For these reasons. the proposed. i.e. current, design concept is fully consistent with the WSP requirements and overall approvals granted to the project in 1995. Based on flus resqew, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in rite project with new, significant land use effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, stgmficant h'md use effects: and no new iafortnation shows the project will have new, significant land use effects not pmxqously discussed Therefore, land use impacts front implementing the current design concept remain within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 2. POPULATION AND ItOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? [ ] [ ) Ix] i ] b. induce substantial growth in an area either directly or inchrectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? [ I [ ] [xl [ ] c. Displace exjsting housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The population issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact because population increases associated with the original project were not forecast to exceed growth thresholds The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the total development proposed under this concept is less than haft of the scope of development envisioned in the original project. Population increases should be comparably decre2sed, thus, population impacts remain nonsignificant. Based on flus review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant population effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant population effects: and no new information shows the project will have new, significant population effects not previously discussed. The development proposed is likely to reduce overall potential population impacts of the project because a lower demand will be created for new employees. Therefore, population impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. The housing issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact because housing demands associated with the original project were not forecast to exceed housing development capacid'. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the total development proposed under tills concept is less than half of the scope of development envisioned in the original project. Housing demand increases should be comparably decreased, thus, housing impacts re~nain nonsigmficant. Based on this review. kmplementation of tile current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new. significant population or housifig effects: no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new. significant population or housing effects: and no new information shows the project will have new, significant population or boasing effects not previously discussed. The development proposed is likely to reduce overall potenUal housing demand impacts of the project because a lower demand will be generated by new employees and a lower population forecast. Therefore, population and housing impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified I{~FOR~.IS\CEQA[ES 9,~2~'97 bdb 9 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] b. Seismic ground shaking? [ J [x} [ ] [ ] c Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [x] [ I d. Seiche, tsu.naxtu, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conchlions form excavation, grading or fill? [ ) [xl [ ) [ ] g Subsidence of the land? [ ] [ ] [x] I ] h. Expansive soils? [ ] [xI [ ] [ ] i Umque geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The earth resource issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse Unpacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse ~mpact. Detailed geotechnical studies were available for the project site and none of the earth resource circumstances has clmnged since the approval in 1995. Although the current design concept envisions more structures. the total square footage proposed in the current design concept encompasses 459,700 square feet (fI2) which is less than could have been built under the City's 1995 approvals (695,000 ~: )as summarized in Enclosure 1. All mitigation measures identified for the project in the Initial Study were adopted by the City and all of these measures can and will be ~mplememed by the applicant. The basic footprint of grading activity for the project remains essentially the same lencompassing WSP areas A, B and C, as proposed in the original EIR. with proposed cut slopes identified for the Western By-pass being implemented at a 1.5/1 slope ratio (horizontal to vertical). This is consistent with the original topogxaplUc mcxlifica~ions, but with slighdy longer slopes (20 feet maximum) due to the elevation at which the Western By-pass Read will be constructed. Such slopes require certification as suitable by a qualified geotechnical professional before they can be constructed and the modifications are consistent with the discussion in the EIR. With certification by the geotechmcal engineer. the earth resource impacts can be mitigated to a nonsignificant level. Based on this review, implementation of tile current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with ne'.k signific.'mt earill resource effects: no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, si~mUficant earth resource effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant earth resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore. earth resource impacts from tinplementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a, Changes in absorption rates, drainage panems, or the rate and mount of surface runoil'? [ I [x] [ ] b Exposureofpeopleorproperlytowaterrelatedhazards such as flooding? [ I {x] [ ] Discharge into stirface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidit3.')? I ] Ix] I ] d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water body? [ ] [xl [ I [ I e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? [ } [ ] Ix] [ ] Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capabili~'? I I [ ] Ixl [ I g Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [1 [1 fx] [ I h, hnpacts to groundwater quailS'? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? [1 Ix] [ ] Exahmtion of Addendum Issues: The water issues were addressed in tile Initial Study and after identifying rmtigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any sigmficant adverse nnpact Three issues were addressed under this topic: surface ranoff and flood hazards; water quality; and water consumpuon The evaluauon in die Initial Stud>, showed that surface ranoff/flood hazard impacts would be controlled by retaining added surface ranoff from development on Area A and delivering it to Mum eta Creek without causing increased ~oochng downstremn or erosion. This circumstance has not changed with the current design concept. The uses and area affected by the project have not cltanged and the water qualit>' mitigation will apply equally to the current project. Finally. overall water consumption will be reduced due to the overall reduction in square footage of uses. With implementauon of the identified mitigation measures. the current design concept impacts wilt continue to be mitigated to a nonsignificant level. Based on dus review, Implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in ff, e project with nell slgnific~mt water resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, slbmificant water resource effects: and no new information shmvs the project will have new, significant water resource cffccts not previously discussed. Therefore, water resource impacts from tinplementing tile current design concept rclnam nonsignificatu and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. R q:ORMSXCEOAIES 912297 Ub ] 1 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 5. MR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Ix] [ ] I ] [ ] b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ I Ixl [ ] [ I Alter air movement, moist'axe or temperature. or cause any change in climate? [ ] [ I [xl I ] d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [xl I ] Evaluation of Addendttm Issues: Air quah_ty was one of the issues identified as being potenhally significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the Both short- and long-term air quality impacts were quantified as being significant. A review of construction emissions indicates that fugitive dust emissions calculation was based on a total of 87 acres of constxuction at a given time. The proposed project will encompass approximately 80 acres of area (47 acres in Area A), ten acres of adjacent area for mass grading, and about 23 acres in the First Street and Western By-pass corridors. Thus, construction emissions, incluclmg fugitive dust are forecast to be less than identified in the Ell>. and, even though significant, the current design concept will not cause greater construction emissions. Project operation, or long-term emissions, were based on traffic flows associated with a total of 1.045,500 square feet (f~2) of facilities and the proposed project envisions only 459,700 ft~ offacdities. Enussiorts from these facilities will be less, both because facilities will utilize less energy and because overall traffic flow will be reduced due to fewer square feet of entertainment venue destinations. All mitigation measures ldentified in the EIP, wilI be Unplemented as required, but both short- and long-term air quality impacts v,~.ll remain significant, but well within the forecast contained in the EIR. Based on tlus review, implementation of the carrent design concept does not pose substantiai change in the project with new, significant air qualit>' effects: no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant air quality effects; and no new information shows the project wilt have new, significant air quality effects not prewously discussed. Therefore, air qualit)' impacts from implementing the current design concept remain widtin the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR, ISSUES AND SUPPORTFNG INFORMATION SOURCES 6, TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] Ix] [ ] b Hazards to safely from design features (e.g sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ c Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] Ix] [ Insufficient p~rking capacity on-site or off-site? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] Ix] [ 1 [l f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] g Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [ ] [ ] [xl I ] Evaluation of Addendure Issues: Transportation/circulation issues were one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and they were, therefore, evaluated in ti~e EIR. All transportation/circulation impacts are mitigable to a nonsignificant level after application of mitigaUon, including the construction of major i~mstmcture improvements such as two bridges, freeway interclange tmprovements. and rite Western By-pass road to Vincent Moraga Road. A review of the proposed current design concept indicates that traffic will be redirected from Old Town to Area A of the WSP, and the mmgation for access to Area A. as identified in tile revised traffic report, will ensure that all transportation/circulation impacts are tmugated to a nonsignificant level. TIle mitigation includes relocation of Vincent Moraga to the northwest and extension of rite Western By-pass road a few hundred feet to this new intersection. All mitigation measures identified in ale EIR and the revised traffic study will be implemented and traffic/circulation impacts will be reduced to a nonsignificant level. The traffic study is attached as Enclosure I to this document and it includes responses to issues raised at the August i8, 1997 Planning Commission workshop. Based on flus rexnew. Unplemenmtion of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project witIx next, sigmlicant transponation/cimulation effects: no substantiaI changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, s~gnfficant transportation/circulation effects: and no new information shows the project will have new, significant transponatlon/oimulation effects not previously discussed. The bottom line with the tram3:~ortation~circulation tinpacts for the current design concept is that impacts can be fully mitigated as outlined in the attached traffic study. Therefore. transportation/circulation impacts from implementing the current design concept remain within the scope of analysis contained in the certified E1R. k 'd:ORMS/CEOA IES 92797 Idb 13 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOP~,iATION SOURCES Significant Potentially Unless L~ss Than Significant Mitigation Signifieam No 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered. threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not itinited to plants, fish. insects, atomdis and birds)? [1 Ix] [ ] [ ] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? [ ] l ] Ix] [ ] c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? I ] Ix] [ ] l ] d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripanan and vernal pool)? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] Evaluation of Addendum Issues: Biological resources were one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the EIP,. All biological resource impacts, including endangered species, habitat and weftand issues, were determined to be potenUally significant but mitigable to a nonsignificant level after application of extensive mitigation. A review of the footprint of the proposed current design concept footprint indicates that the same amount of acreage will be disturbed m the WSP axe& in tile bridge corridors. and in the First Street areas of disturbanoe as projected in the EIR. Wifldn file WSP and along the Western By-pass the EIR evaluation assumed that all 87.9 acres would be disturbed, i nclnding the area required for cuts and fills along the corridor. No specific definition of the boundaries of the cuts and fills was Nssible when flze EIR was oompleted. but an accurate estimate of disturbance was possible based on the footprint of the total area of disturbance. Subsequently, negotiations wUh the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identified mitigation that was accepted for the area to be disturbed as defined in the El?, understanding that exact acreage could not be precisely determined until final engineering was completed. As a result, extra mitigation for disturbance was proposed and accepted by FWS and full mitigation has been provided for endangered species and habitat losses All mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be imple~nented and based on negotiated regulatory permits. the impacts will remain within the forecast contained in the EIR. Based on flus review. implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant biological resource effects: no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant biological resource effects: and no new information shows the project will have new, significant biological resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore. biological resource impacts from implementing tile current design coacept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a Conflict wzth adopted energy consen'ation plans? [ I [ 1 Ix] b Use non-renewal resources in a v/asteful and inefficient manner? [ ] [xl [1 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State9 l ] Ixl II U'j:OP,~IS',CEQA IES 9/2~97 ~Jb ] 4 ISSUES AND SL~PORT[NG INFORMATION SOURCES Evaluation of Addendum Issues: TIle natural resource, mineral and energy, issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project ~voutd not cause or experience any significant adverse impact because no mineral resources will be affected by the project and adequate energy resources are available to meet forecast demand for the foreseeable future. The proposed current desig~ concept Ires not potential to alter this conclusion since no such resorttees occur within the area of potenual effect and energy consumption wilt be reduced because of less one/half of the square footage will be constructed and the arena is now an enclosed, not open, area. Thus, natural resource impacts remain nonsignificant. Based on this review, miplementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new. significant natural resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new. significant natural resource effects: and no new information shows the project will have new, significant natural resorttee effects not previously discussed. Therefore, natural resource impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemical or radiation)? I] Ix] [ I [ I b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [l [ I Ix] [ I c. The creation of any healtit hazard or potential healtit hazard? [ ] [xl [ ] [ I d. Exposureofpeoptetoexistingsourcesofpotentialhealth hazards? [l Ixl [ ] I ] e. Increase fire hazard in areas with datumable brush, grass, or trees? {I [xl [ I [ I Evaluation of Addendure Issues' The risk of upset issues were addressed in the IniUal Study and it was concluded titat the original project would not cause or experience any sigraticam adverse tinpact because policies and measures tilcluded in the City's General Plan guide management and control of such upsets, The proposed current desigu concept has no potential to alter this couclusion since tile same policies and measures apply to the new project. Thus, ask of upset impacts remain noustgnLficant. The healti~ ask issues were also addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that rile original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse healfit risk impact because the proposed uses do not entail activities Ihat create health asks. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the uses remain tile same and total development proposed under this concept is less than half of the scope of des'elopment envisioned in the original project. Healtit ask impacts should be comparably decreased, thus, healtit risk impacts remain nonstgnilicant. B:ksed on flus mwew, imple~nentation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in tile project with uew, s~gnificant ask of upset or healtit ask effects: no substantial changes in c~rcumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant risk of upset or health risk effects; and no new infomtation shows the project will have new, significant ask of upset or healtit ask effects not previously discussed Therefore, risk of upset and health risk impacts from tinplemenung the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the ISSUES AND SUPPORTING [NFORMATION SOURCES certified EIR. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? [x] [ ] [ ] [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? I I Ix] [ ] Evaluation of Addendure issues: Noise was one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the EIR. Both short- and long-term noise impacts were quantified and determined to be potentially significant, but mitigable to a nonsignificant level. A review of the proposed current design concept footprint indicates that the same general amount of acreage will be disturbed during construction, the noise impacts can be reduced to a nonsignificant level through the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The noise impacts from operating the facilities in Old Town becomes a moot point since no facitnies are initially proposed in this urea. The noise impacts from the arena and other facilities in Area A will be reduced even further than proposed mitigation because the arena will be a solid, insulated structure that will contain noise from operations much better than the original tent. All pertinent mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and based on implementation of these measures, the impacts will remain witfun the forecast contained in the EIR. Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant noise effect; no substantial changes in circumsumces have occurred which may cause new, significant noise effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant noise effects not previously discussed. In fact the current design concept will reduce overall operational noise impacts. Therefore, noise impacts from Implementing the current design concept ternare nonsignificant and witixin the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] b Police protection? { ] Ix] [ ] [ ] c. Scliools? [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities. inclucting roads? [ ] [xl [ I [ 1 e. Other governmental services? I ] [ ] [x] [ ] Evaluation of Addendure Issues: The public service issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts. it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact. Public service irapacts will be mitigated by providing resources (infrastructure and capacity increases) to addres~ thnse service impacts where demand requires mitigation, and through no effect for other impacts, like recreation facilities. These same measures must be applied to current design concept and, as a result of reduced demand because of the reduced size of the project, the net result is that there will be no increase in public service demand impac'~. With implementation of the required mitigation measure, the public service impacts either remain ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Sigmfic. aat Mitigation Sign~c&nt No nonsignificant, or can be mitigated to a nonsigmficant level. Based on this review, unplementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant public service effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant public service effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant public service effects not previously discussed. Therefore, public service impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. 12. UTILITLES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? [ ] [ I fx] [ ] b. Communications systems? [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ] c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] d. Sewer or septiic tanks? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] e. Storm water drainage? [ ] [xl [ ] [ ] f. Solidwaste disposal? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] g. Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] Ix] [ I Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The utility issues were addressed in the Initial Study, It was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse utility impacts because adequate infrastructure connections are available at the property's peripltery. As a result of reduced demand because of the reduced size of the project, the net result is that there will be no increase in overall utility demand impacts. With implementation of the required mitigation measure, the utility impacts either remain nonsignificant. Based on flus review, implementation of the ~nt design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant utility effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant utilit)' effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant utility effects not previously discussed. Therefore. utility impacts from Implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. RAFOP,,MS\CEQA. IES 9/2~d97 tdb 17 iSSUES AND SUPPORTING [NFORMAT|ON SOURCES 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a, Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ltnpael b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [ I {xl { I [l c, Create light or glare? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ I Evaluation of Addendum Issues: [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] Aesthetic/visual impacts were one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and they were, therefore, evaluated in the EIR All aesthetic impacts were determined to be mitigable to a nonsignificant level after application of extensive mitigation, including rapid revegetation of the cut slopes along the Western By-pass Road and on the berm adjacent to residents on Pujol SueeL A review of the proposed current design concept indicates that the original pad elevation will be lower than shown in visual simulations; titat the large mass of the hotel will be divided into several stxuctures; and the tent-like arena will be replaced with a smaller, building. Cut slope length will be increased relative to that previously shown, but the combination of lowered pad elevation and landscape revegetation identified to mitigate this impact will be tmplemented as envisioned in the certified EIR and provided in the current landscape plan. This is shown m the new visual simulation of the project developed to illustrate the changes from the original design concept_ This new simulation is available at the Plaxtxdng Department for review and consideration. Implementation of all proposed mitigation measures can ensure that all aesthetic impacts will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and aesthetic impacts will be reduced to a nonsignificant level. The light and glare issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact. Light and glare impacts are controlled by meeting performance requirements (absolute thresholds) established by Cat Tech for the Mr. Palomar Observatory. These same measures must be applied to current design concept and the net result is no additional light and glare impacts. With implementation of the required mitigation measure, the light and glare impacts can be mitigated to a nonsignificant level. Based on this re,new, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant aesthetic effects: no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, signalcant aesthetic effects; and no new information shows tile project will have new, significant aesthetic effects not previously discussed. The net effect with the aesthetic impacts for the current design concept is that impacts can be full>' mitigated in the same manner as for tile original design concept by utilizing the same intensive cut slope revegetation program, Therefore, aesthetic tinpacts from implementing the current design concept remain within the scope of analysis contained in tile certified RAFORMS\CEQAIES 9/?d97 Idb ] 8 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontolog~cal resources? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] b. Disturb archaeological resources? [ } [ ] fx] [ ] c. Affect historical resources? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [ ] [ ] Ix} [ ] Evaluation of Addendure Issues: The calltural resource issues were addressed in the initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse cultural resource impact because no cultural resources occur within Area A based on site specific surveys and because no facilities will be placed within Old Town at this time where historical structures exist_ The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the uses remain the same and the area affected remains the same. Cultural resource impacts remain nonsignificant under the current design concept. Based on this rewew, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant cultural resource effects: no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant cultural resource effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant cultural resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore, cultural resource impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified El?,. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [l Ix] { I Evaluation of Addendum Issues: The r~reaUon ismes were addressed n the Imtial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse recreation impact because the proposed uses provide recreation and do not affect any existing or future recreation uses. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since file uses remain the same. Recreation impacts remain nonsignificant under file current design concept. Based on dfis review, implementahon of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with new, significant recreation effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, slgmficant recreation effects: and no new information shows the project will have new. significant recreation effects not previously discussed. Therefore, recreation impacts from implementing tile current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR. 1(;. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or aremat community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prelUstory? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ] b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-ten, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [x] [1 It Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in cormection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [x] 11 [1 [l Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direc~y or indirectly? [1 [xl [1 [l Evaluation of Addendure Issues: The purpose of this analysis has been to determine whether the current design concept, which represents two years of design evolution and facility selecuon for Axed A of the WSP, will cause additional or different significant effects than those forecast in the Final EIR certified by the City in 1995. Fundamentally, the current design concept remains relativeb' close to the original in terms of focus and types of uses. As discussed in the project description in this Initial Study and the Land Use evaluation 1, the original structures in Area A of the WSP have been separated into individual support uses that were originally envisioned to be contained within one facility, such as the auditorium/opera house being separated from the hotel and the museum being separated from the wild west arena. Based on the evaluation of the new design concept as presented above, hnplementation the current project would not alter the findings reached within the certified Final EIR. The only issues of real concern are the change in the cut slopes which will be lengthened, not increased m absolute elevation or visibility, due to lowering the elevation of the Western By-pass road and traffic flows, which have been reduced overall from the original project. The new traffic study, the new visual simulation, and the required mitigation illustrate how the aesthetic impacts remain as depicted in the Final EIR. As descnbed in the final EIIL the cut slope impacts can be reduced to a nonsignificant level by implementing the rapid and effective revegetation of these slopes in accordance with mitigation requirements and as demonstrated in the landscape plan being reviexved for tim current project by tile City. 17. EARLrKRANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EItL or other CEQA process, one or more effects bave been adequately analyzed in an earlier E[R or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tile following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify. earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The certified Final EIR for the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project was relied upon m preparing this Initial Study and Addendure. b Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within tile scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pumuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. All impacts evaluated in this [(:/~cOp,.MS\CEQA.IES 9,r22/97 klb 20 document include mitigation measures, and monitoring plans, that were adopted when the original project was approved and the Final ErR certified in 1995. Mitigation m~. For effects that are "Less than Significant w/th Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. No revisions to original mitigation measures have been required for the current project, but specific measures are more well defined at this point. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temccuta Genera/Plan Final Environ. mental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management Disu'ict CEQA Air Qua/ity Handbook. 4. Old Town Redevelopment Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, 1995 R:'~FOPJv{S\C[QA, EES 922/97 TRAFFIC STUDY R:x, STAFFRPT~298PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vgw WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS · PLANNERS 2300 E. VATELlA AVE. · SUITE 275 '* ANAH~IM. EA 92B06"6047 * (7 }4) 978'811O · FAX (714) 978' 1109 AugUst ll, 1997 ZcY Buffman President TemecuIa Entertainment 41934 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Buffman: Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) is pleased to submit thlsFin~lRcport which documents the key findings of the traffic study update we have completed for the Old Tox~ Entertainment Center project located in Temecula California. The purpose of this study is re-evaluate traffic impacts of the project based on various revisions which have been made to the Old Town Entertainment Center since the EIR traffic ~tudy was performed in October 1994. The focus of the traffic study update is to assess impacts of the proposed project revisions on traffic generation, and traffic distribution. The general scope of WSA's work is designed to respond to the City of Tcmccula's request to review the currently proposed project plan D_nd verify the net change in traffic impacts from the original EtR study, which would result from the revised plan. A more derailed description of work tasks xvhich were involved in the prepz.ration of a "traffic study update" for the Old Town Entcr'~ainment Center (OTEC) is provided below: l) Review land use components of the currently defined OTEC and note differences which will require a re-evaluation of trip generation. Any change in the seating capacities and/or planned "show'* schedules for the major project venues will require adjuslrnents in trip generation. 2) The traffic generation assessment generally applies previously accepted methodology (used in the Barton-Aschman study) to re-assess vehicular traffic generation for the project. As addressed in the Barton-Aschman study, traffic generation for the revised project is estimated for both the weekday evening and Saturday midday peak-hour condition. These peak-hour periods represent the critical period of operation for the street system in the vicinity of th~ project. It i~ d,ring this period that additional traffic generated by the EMpLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY Zev Buffman August 11, 1997 Page 2 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES project could potentially have the most significant impact on area traffic operation. A comparative analysis is presented of the updated project traffic generation study findings and the previous study traffic generation estimates. 3) Vehicle trip distribution characteristics for the project were re-evaluated and adjusted based on the current spaclot distribution' of activity nodes within the project ~s well a~ plm-med parking facilities. 4) Based on the updated project traffic generation (estimated in Task 2) and revised trip distribution characteristics (evaluated in Task 3), updated traffic ~sslgnments of project- related tr'd'fic were developed for the study area street network. Updated project traffic assigaments were developed for bdth the weekday evening and Saturday midday peak-hour condition. A comparative analysis was made of the updated project traffic ~signments and the previous study traffic assignments. · 5) WSA reviewed the proposed northerly relocation of the Vincent Moraga connection with the Western Bypass concerning traffic operations and parking accessibility. Updated Project Land Use Current project led use, as defined by Tcmecula Entertainment, is summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that Phase II uses .include one theater (refered to as the "Palace Theater") which is actually anticipated to be implemented in a third development phase. For purposes of the cummulative project traffic generation analysis, it is conservatively assumed that this entertainment venue occurs in Phase II. Based on discussions with Temecula Entertaimnent, it is our understanding that Phase I and Phase II are expected to be completed by the fourth quarter of 1998 and fourth quarter of 1999 repectively. Project Trip Generation WSA has carefully reviewed the principal land use components of the revised project including seating capacities, floor areas, and event schedules. It was also important to gain a good understanding of the planned operations and interrelationships of the various project uses. 0 0 ~.. 0 F-.. LU 0 0 0 I-- 0 0 0 ,...., < < -r Zcv Buffman August I L 1997 Page 3 V V ILL*tU I~ SMITH ASSOCIATES One critical refinement which has been made since the last study. relates to the planned scheduling of shows and events which would occur at the arena and various theaters within the project. These schedules, which we understand would be controlled by the project operator/manager, have a direct affect on the magnitude of project-related traffic impacts which would be experienced duxing the normal .weekday evening (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and Saturday midday (h00 to 2:00 p;m. peak-hour periods. Current event/show programming for the project generally schedule rnoit weekday events and shows commencing at 7:30, 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. On weekends, the events/shows would be scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m., 3:00-3:30 p.m., or 7:30-8:30 p.m. If these event]show schedule times are implemented, related traffic impacts would be nominal dttring the typical traffic peak-hours on the study area street system. WSA has taken a very conservative approach in the methodology used to derive project-related traffic during the highway peak-hour pcrlods. In the case of the arena and 'theaters, it is assumed that all venues are operating at madmum seating capacities that a minimum of 10 percent of the generated trips for the event/show would occur during the preceding highway pe~-hous regardless of the time differential. Typically, all attendcos arrive well within a 90 minute period preceding "show tirne." The trip generation analysis also includes the conservative assumption that the "Food and Wine Court" would a{ the same layel as featured dining establishment in terms of its abLlity to draw public to the project. In reality, most food court facilities typically operate as an "amenity" to the major attractors such as retail and principal event/show venues and rarely draw public to a project on their own. It should be noted that some of the land uses within the project were assessed to be incidental or passive in nature and ~e not expected to contribute significantly to the primary attraction of vehicle ~ps to the projcct. These include the chapel, Roy Rogers Experience/Museum (and down-sized virtual reality venue), and informal/incidental entertainment components of the dining and retail core. As described to us, the chapel located on the central courtyard portion of the project site, would serve as a.n informal place of rcst and self-reflection/meditation for visitors. The R. oy Rogers Experience/museum and virtual reality ride as well as other general entertainment components of the project are considered as a secondary-level attractions available to visitors attending the primary events/shows, dining establishments and retail shopph~g attractions. Based on similar entcrtainmcnt-oriented projects, these secondary-level uses become incidcntal to the primary attractions. Traffic generation for these uses is considered insignificant relative to traffic generation for the primary attractions. Zev Buffm~n August If, 1997 Page 4. VVILDUI< SMITH ASSOCIATES Assumptions used in the derivation of traffic generation for each of the primary project land uses (witjob are expected to generate traffic) have been summarized by projeer phase and are attached. A summary of gross vehicle trips estimated to be generated by project Phase I and Phase II during the weekday and Saturday peak-hour periods is presented in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. A comparison of the gross vehicle trip generation for the currently defined project Phase I with the earlier Barton Asctunan study indicates a substantial reduction in gross weekday peak-hour trips (170 vs. 1,825 inbound vehicles and 50 vs. 780 outbound vehicles). The reduction in gross Saturday peak-hour vehicle trips is also significant (170 vs. 2,425 inbound vehicles and 170 vs. 850 outbound vehicles). A similar comparison of curnmulative gross vehicle trip generation for the currently defined project Phase I and II with the earlier Barton Asckrnan study of Phase t indicates a smaller but still significant reduction in weekday peak-hottr trips (841 vs. 1,825 inbound vehicles and 435 vs. 780 outbound vehicles). For the Saturday peak hour, the current estimate of cumulative Phase I and II gross peak-hour vehicle trips is again substantially lower th~ that estimated for Phase I in the earlier Barton Aschman study (996 vs. 2,425 inbound vehicles and 660 vs. 850 outbound vehicles). Gross trip estimates developed for the project are adjusted to reflect the interaction of trips between individual uses on the project site and Old Totem Temeoula- This urip interaction is referred to as "internal trip-making" and occurs in the pedestrian mode of travel. For Phase I of the project, the analysis conservatively assumes that no internal trip-making occurs. In reality, there would be opportunity for trip interactions between the arena and Old Town. For Phase II, it is assumed that up to 65 percent of the hotel trips would be internal to the project and Old Town. It in also assumed that up to 50 percent of the dining and retail trips would be internal to the project and Old Town. These are basically the same internal trip-making assumptions applied in the previous study. Illustrated summaries of the final "adjusted" trip generation assessment for Project Phase II (Weekday Evening and Saturday Midday Peak-Hour) conditions are provided in Figures 1 a and 2a. Also provided, for comparison, are the previous traffic study trip generation summaries Table 2 Phase | Trip Generation Old Town Entertainment Center WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR (5:00 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M.) LAND USE COMPONENTS Wild West Arena Administration/Back of House INBOUND 160 10 170 VEiLIICLE TRIPS OUTBOUND 0 50 50 TOTAL 160 60 220 SATURDAY PEAK HOUR (1:00 P,M. TO 2:00 P.M.) la LAND USE COMPONENTS Wild West Arena Administration/Back of House INBOUND 160 10 170 VEHICLE TRIPS OUTBOUND 160 10 170 ~OTAL 320 20 340 Table 3a Phase II Trip Generation (41 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR (5:00 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M.) Old Town Entertainment Center LAND USE COMPONENTS GROSS VEHICLE TRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL 1 a Wild West Arena 200 0 200 2 Celibrity 73 0 73 3 Studio Theater 25 25 50 4 Western Dinner Theater 17 0 17 7 Palace Theater 73 0 73 Sub-Total 388 25 413 5 Food and W~ne Court 60 30 90 6a Dining 60 20 80 6b Retail 220 220 440 Sub-Total 340 270 61 O 103 90 193 8 Hotel 1 b Administration/Back of House 10 50- 60 Total 841 435 1,276 (1) Trip generalion represents gross vehicle trips without adjustment for internal trip-making. Table 3b Phase I1 Trip Generation SATURDAY PEAK HOUR {1:00 P.M. TO 2:00 P.M.) Old Town Entertainment Center LANDUSECOMPONENTS GROSS VEHICLETRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL 1 a Wild West Arena 200 , 200 400 2 CeIlhdty 73 0 73 3 Studio Theater 75 1 O 85 4 Weslem Dinner Theater 42 O 42 7 Palace Theater 73 0 73 Sub-Total 463 210 673 5 Food and Wine Court 60 30 90 6a Dining 60 20 80 6b Retail 300 300 600 Sub-Totat 420 350. 770 8 Hotel 103 90 193 lb AdministratioNBack of House 10 10 20 Total 996 660 1,656 (1) ~'rip generation represents gross vehicle trips without adjuslment for internal trip-making. Zev Buffman August 11, 1997 Page 5 SMITH ASSOCIATES for the same analysis .periods. These are shown in Figure Ib and 2b for the weekday and Saturday peak-hours respectively.' Findings of the updated trip generation analysts axe as follows: Net vehicle trip generation for the revised project Phase I land use is 170 inbound and 50 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 170 inbound and 170 outbound vehicle Uips during th~ Saturday peak hour. Net cumulative vehicle trip generation for the revised project Phase I and H land use is 539 inbound and 216 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak ho~tr and 672 inbound and 322 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour. For comparison, the net vehicle trip generation for the earlier defined project Phase I land use w~ 995 inbound and 325 outbotmd vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 1,475 inbound and 330 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour. Trip generation for the currently proposed Project Phase I represents less than 17 percent of the total weekday peak hour trip generation estimated in the EIR traffic study. In this case the reduction in peak hour trips is fairly evenly distributed between inbound and outbound traffic. Saturday midday peak hour trip generation for the revised Project Phase I represents less than 19 percent of the lotal u'ip gencration estimated in the EIR traffic study. For the Satru-day peak hour, the greatest reduction in trips occurs in the inboand traffic direction. The new outbound traffic estimate represents approxjm. ately 52 percent of the outbound traffic given in the EIR study. Cumulative weekday peg hour trip generation for the currently proposed Project Phase I and II represents approximately 54 percent of the total Phase I EIR study trip generation ',~fith close to equal trip reduction in both the inbound and outbound directions. IJJO< O~ < 0 ~- co 0 r'r-n-Z LLILUrr ~._~_,LLI XX~.-- 0 0 LO 0 7 C) >, ~ ~5 ~r' CO~no o.~<, 0-¢'~ 0 u... CD ~ I- 0 LLI 0 rr n ~0 C3 W A O~ A "~W Zev Buffman August II, 1997 Page 6 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES For the Saturday midday peak hour, proposed Project Phasc I and II cumulative trip generation is 'estimated to represent only 55 percent of the total trips estimated for Phase I in the earlier study. For the Saturday analysis condition, most trip reductions associated with the current project plan occur in the inbound direction. The outbound trip generation level is currently estimated at approximately 98 percent of that given in the Phase I EIK study. Projeel Trip Distribution and Assignment WSA has reviewed the trip distribution assumptions included in the previous EIR traffic study. AdjusUnents bave been made in the inmaediate study area to reflect the shift &all project land uses out of the ceutral Old Town area and consolidated on the site adjacent to the Western By- pass. A major factor considered in the re-distribution of project trips is also the revised location of designated parking areas oh the project site and existing parking in Old Town. The revised project-related trip distribution is provided in Figure 3. All but approximately 8 percent of the traffic is estimated to approach the project via the Western Bypass, 1st Street, and Vincent Moraga Drive. Based on the revised trip generation and trip distribution, Phase I and Phase I and II combined project trips were assigned to the area street system for the weekday and Saturday analysis scenarios. The results of the assignment procedure are presented in Figures 4 and 5 which also show the previous study traffic assignrecur. As can be seen in Figure 4a and 4b, all of the current Phase I traffic volumes at the affected intersectio~ are substantially lower than those previously estimated. With the currently proposed Phase l, project traffic volumes would be less than 19 percent of that previously estimated for the weekday peak-hour condition and less than 25 percent of the previously estimated for the Saturday peak-hour condition. Traffic assignments shown in Figure 5a and 5b indicate that the cumulative Phase I and II traffic volumes resulting from the current proposal would be be lower in almost all cases at individual intersection movements and in all cases based on total [raffle added to the intersections. N.T.S. LEGEND . OLD TOV,'N SPECIFIC pl.~',l ENTERTAJNZ~ENT 'CORE' xX f/~, ENTERTAJNUENT 'CORE TRIP DISTRIBUIION PRO"JECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION CITY OF TEMECULA - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Flcua.sj LIs I Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. CITY OF TEMECU[.A - OLD TOWN RSDI~V~iLOPMENT PROJECT 9 PHASE :L Pr{oJEc'l' "F't~FT=i~' PROJECT' WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. CITY OF TEMECULA - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~ FJGUR~ Zev Buffman August 11, 1997 Page 7 ' WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Vincent Moraga Drive Extension Realignment The specific issue which was requested to be addressed involves the proposed realignment of Vineant Moraga Drive extension to the Western Bypass at the north end of the project site. In the Conceptual Master Plan, the proposed alignmcnt of the Vincent Moraga Drive extension resulted in a bisection of the parking area located at the north end of fie site. This presented a situation wb, ich required access drives to three separate parking lots formed by the road alignment. This parking access layout would have restated in a relatively high potential for turning movement conflicts, related accidents, and traffic congestion. As currently proposed, the alignment of the Vincent Moraga Drive extension is shifted north in a manner which would essentially place all parking on the south side. With this configuration, only two parking lots would be formed with a collector-type street serving as access to both lots. The proposed intersection spacing along the Vincent Moraga Drive extension is more favorable than in the Conceptual Master Plan and fewer potential tuming movement conflicts would result. With the current street alignment and parking layout WSA. recommends parking access locations as depicted in Figure 6. Conchtsions The results of the WSA traffic update demonstrate that, the currently dc~ncd Phase I and combined Phase I and FI project would have significantly lower traffic impacts than the previous study estimated. This is evident by the comparative findings of both the trip generation analysis as welt as ~he trip assigmment evaluation. Modifications to the project land uses, location of uses, and the progra.m.med schedule of events/shows have cumulatively contributed the reduction in traffic impacts. \ Zev Buffman August 11, 1997 Page 8 'WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 978-gl 10. Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Pla.rmer RAD:rad Attachments Ib 4,~Sdd4 Ib 5~vaaD~?/ I:oc> PM To Z'.oDP~I P~K-Hou/~ I/nO0 X O, fO = I~O':VDflCdX.~ Ou?'BOuUD ** X o. IO = 7.,oh :2~ vr~ 5'mblb THF.,ATr-q, - 300 RmSc:~,~ + 3 PPV = JOb Vr.,J-Jic. Lr,5 Exn7/d~; B~t~ ~'~oo 4~vo ~:oo p~. ~0 ~' I,ZPPV = 25' L/E.H/t'Lr.5' OuT'5~o~jb T 4;30 To .5':00 77v~t 2too,o~ ~4OTF~L, - 2.S'D R~oxt~ 7S3 X o, IO ~- "75 YE-JRe-z..~-, G Yl':2t~/ 103 VEJ~Ir-I,.ES XD, ID '= 7,'0 UrOl Z C-r,D~BrFr)/T, qrt,;7'~ - 2i200 PBe,"~,,vS .4-g p,,n/= 733 vr~w,'e.zs ~,,~ 3:3Dr~d 5Hoto .. ,~ ~unru ,4zsu~c ,% ~tr.A S~os o~o ~oaxrod~s '73.~ X ' ~. Io :- q3 Y~tc.L.~ l~Baa.~ 0 vp~Ittr~ Z 57'PblO 7',ql4Tz,~' 300 p~gb~ ,~'t..~ 2:00 p~ ,5'h'~W ktu~ /6q X O,z~' ""- ,q-Z vr,..~lct. r--..s I~oBt, vk~O A-+ ~, HoTEc- - Z~'o I'<ta~4s PEP, 300 v~:H WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS · PLANNERS 3600 Lime Streel. SLijt9 226 · Riverside, CA 92501 · (714) 9.74-05&5 · FAX (714) 274.9220 August 28, 1997 Zev Buffman President Temecula Entertainment 41934 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Wild West Arena Formal Site Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Submittal Dear Mr. Buffman: In preparation of the referenced submittal package for the City of Temecula Planning Department, Wilbar Smith Associates (WSA) has been requested to address the subject of traffic impacts related to the proposed Old Town Entertainment Center project. In response 'to this request, WSA has prepared the following discussion which addresses traffic impacts for Phase I - Wild West Arena and responds to traffic issues raised at the recent Planning Commission Workshop for the project. Traffic impacts related to Phase I of the project have been studied and are addressed in WSA's letter reporl dated August 11, 1997. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate traffic impacts of the project based on revisions which have been made to the Old Town Entertainment Center since the EIR traffic study was performed in October 1994. The focus of the traffic study update was to assess impacts of the proposed project revisions on traffic generation, and project traffic distribution on the surrounding street system. The study scope was designed to respond to the City of Temecula's request to review the currently proposed project plan and verify the net change in traffic impacts from the original EISR study, 3vhich would result from the revised plan. The following provides an overview of the findings of the project Phase I analysis. Phase I of the project consists of the Wild West Arena which will have an initial seating capacity of 4,800 persons. the current development schedule anticipates completion of Phase I by December of 1998. \t',hz, b;Y * ALLIANC[:, OH · CAIRO. EGYP[ · CItARLESION. SC · COtUMDIA, SC . COLUMBUS. OH · DES MOINES, IA · FAI.I S CHURCH, VA .;G KONG · HOUSIOr'I. TX · K~4OXVI/[[, TN ./[-XINGTON. Y,Y · I.OhIDON, ENGLAND · |O5 ANGEl[:',;, CA · MIAM~. [:[ · t,;II'NAH, Wt ,,' I-tAI.,[:N CT OAKLAt,'D. CA · ()RLAt:DO. FL · pIITSRIJRGIt. PA · PORISMOUTII, NIl · PROVIDL:blCE. I~1 * P, AII~Gh. NC: :~,:'.",~D V,', · ':"""~'r'~2 C,~ . ,'?'D~FI,[ [ tL · SAN FI~ANC/SCO. CA · SAN JOSE. CA · SIIxIGAPOR~ · IOI~ON[O. CANADA · V,,AS!t~NC.[C3N, DC EMpLOyEE-OWNED COMPANy Zev Buffman August 28, 1997 Page 2 WSA has reviewed the traffic generation assuming full utilization of the seating capacity and the planned event schedules for the arena. These schedules, which would be controlled by the project operator/manager, have a direct affect on the magnitude of project-related traffic impacts which would be experienced during the normal weekday evening (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and Saturday, midday (1:00 to 2:00 p.m. peak-hour periods. Current eventJshow programming for the Wild West Arena generally schedule weekday events and shows commencing at 7:30. On weekends, the events/shows would be scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m. and/or 7:30 p.m.p.m. If these events'show schedule times are implemented, related traffic impacts would be nominal during the typical traffic peak-hours on the study area street system. A comparison of the gross vehicle trip generation for the currently defined project Phase I with the earlier Barton Aschman study indicates a substantial reduction in gross weekday peak-hour trips (170 vs. 1,825 inbotmd vehicles and 50 vs. 780 outbound vehicles). The reduction in gross Saturday peak-hour vehicle trips is also sig'nificant ( 170 vs. 2,425 inbound vehicles and 170 vs. 850 outbound vehicles). For Phase I of the project, the trip generalran analysis conservatively assumes that no internal trip- making occurs. While in reality, there would be opportunity for trip interactions between the arena and Old Town, none of the vehicle trips estimated to be generated by the project were discounted. Findings of the updated trip generation analysis have been reported as follows: Net vehicle trip generation for the revised project Phase I land use is 170 inbound and 50 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 170 inbound and 170 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour. For comparison, the net vehicle trip generation for the earlier defined project Phase I land use was 995 inbound and 325 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 1,475 inbound and 330 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour. Trip generation for the currently proposed Project Phase I represents less than 17 percent of the total weekday peak hour trip generation estimated in the ELR traffic study. In this case the reduction in peak hour trips is fairly evenly distributed between inbound and outbound traffic. Z, ev Buffman August 28, 1997 Page 3 Saturday midday peak hour trip generation for the revised Project Phase I represents less than 19 percent of the total trip generation estimated in the EIR traffic study. For the Saturday peak hour, the greatest reduction in trips occurs in the inbound traffic direction. The new outbound traffic estimate represents approximately 52 percent of the outbound traffic given in the EIR study. Daily trip generation for Phase I of the project is estimated at approximately 9,750 total vehicle trips for the weekday condition and 19,500 for the weekend condition. It is important to note that the Wild West A~ena in anticipated to have only one show per week on a weekday (Friday) and occasionally two shows per day on the weekend days. As such, the above daily traffic generation estimates should not be interpreted as "average" daily traffic. WSA's reviewed of the trip distribution assumptions used in the previous EIR traffic study included adjustments in the immediate study area to reflect the consolidation designated project parking areas on the project site adjacent to the Western Bypass Road. The revised project-related trip distribution estimates all but approximately 8 percent of the traffic approaching the project via the Western Bypass, 1st Street, and Vincent Motage Drive. According to the re-distribution analysis, all of the current Phase I traffic volumes at the affected intersections are substantially lower than those previously estimated. With the currently proposed Phase I development, project traffic volumes would be less than 19 percent of that previously estimated for the weekday peak-hour condition and less than 25 percent of the previously estimated for the Saturday peak-hour condition. The results ofthe WSA traffic update demonstrated that, the currently defined Phase I project would have significantly lower traffic impacts than the previous study estimated. This is evident by the comparative findings of both the trip generation analysis as well as the trip assignment evaluation. Modifications to the project land uses, location of uses, and the programmed schedule of events/shows have cumulatively contributed the reduction in traffic impacts. Additional'.traffic issues raised at the recent Planning Commission workshop included concerns regarding traffic which would be added by the opening of the Temecula Mall and timing questions related to the programmed interchange improvements at Rancho California Road and State Route Zev Buffinan August 28, 1997 Page 4 79 South. The Temecula Mall project will add an increment of new traffic to the Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange which was not defined at the time the original EIR traffic study was performed. The estimated reductions in peak hour trips associated with revised Old Town Entertainment Center project would actually help in off-setting most of the added Mall traffic on Rancho Califomia Road at the interchange and Ynez Road as compared to the or/ginal EIR traffic impact assessment at this location. Even more significant, is the mitigative impact of the programmed Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange improvement. According to the most current construction schedule obtained from the City of Temecula Public Works Department, the Rancho California Road intemhange improvement is expected to be open to traffic by December 1998. This improvement combined with the reduction in project-related traffic impacts would result in better traffic operating conditions than anticipated in the Original EIR traffic study, even with the additional Mall traffic. The current schedule for the State Route 79 South/I-15 interchange shows completion of the improvement would occur by October or November 1998. This indicates that both interchange improvements would be completed before or at approximately the same time as the Wild West Arena is scheduled to open. Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 978-8110. Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Planner WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS * PLANNERS 2305 E ~ATELLL L,E · SUrT/2'5 · ANAHErM CA 92800 0047 · (7 M> 078-8110 · FAX (7 14) 078 110c September 21, 1997 Zev Buffman President Temecula Entertainment 41934 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Development Review Committee Traffic Circulation Comments on Planning Application No, PA97-0298 Westside Specific Plan Dear Mr. Buffinan: Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has been requested to address traffic circulation comments made by the City. of Temecula Development Review Committee relative to the proposed Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center project. In response to the traffic issues raised by Ci.ty staff, WSA has conducted additional analysis of the current project plan and has prepared the following discussion of the analysis findings. Review of Project Circulation Plan WSA has carefully reviewed the circulation plan proposed for the project and has analyzed issues related to: access location and spacing; sight distance; vehicle stacking requirements for principal turning movements; the need for deceleration and acceleration lanes; and traffic control requirements including traffic lane configurations and intersection controls. Also addressed in the study are tarrang radius considerations for larger vehicles (such as buses and trucks) expected to use the on-site circulation roadways, fire truck access and specific parking areas. Access Constderanons- Primary access for the project, would be provided via the Western By-pass. Secondary access would be provided by Vincent Moraga Drive and 1st Street. Access spacing along the Western By-pass road is a minimum of 1,320 feet (1/4-mile) for full movement intersections and a minimum of 450 feet for right-in/right-out only access drives. This spacing generally meets the City's arterial spacing policy and should provide favorable flow conditions along the Western By- pass road. EMPLOYEli-OWNED COMPANY Zev Buffman September 2 I, 1997 Page 2 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Minimum access spacing is 365 feet on Vincent Monga Drive and 430 feet on 1st Street. This spacing should be adequate for these Principal Collector roadways. It is important to consider that the peak traffic periods for the project do not coincide with those of the adjacent land uses. Impacts of the project during the typical highway peak hour would be considerably less than most other potential uses for the site. SIght Dzstance- Given the current layout of on-site roadways, sight distance appears to be adequate at all intersection locations along the perimeter of the site. On-site intersection sight distances are also adequate at all locations with one exception. The eastbound approach of the northernmost access drive, to the north-south access road, could have a sight distance problem (looking north) if a pedestrian crosswalk is provided. A retaining wall along the west side of the north-south access road could obstruct motorist's ability to see oncoming traffic if the limit line is located behind a crosswalk. As such, pedestrians flows should be directed to cross the north-south access road north of the intersection and proceed along the east side of the access road. The final landscaping plans for the site should be reviewed to insure that coner sight lines will not be obstructed. l'ehzcle Stacking- WSA has reviewed general stacking requirements for peak period traffic conditions at key intersections and is working with the site engineer to display the recommended sniping plan. Lefi-mm lanes provided on the Westen By-pass road and Vincent Moraga Drive for entering project traffic should be a minimum 200 feet in length. Along First Street, between the Westen By-pass road and the north-south access road, peak inbound and outbound left tun movements would require more storage length than can be provided by a back-to-back center left- turn lane. The options are to eliminate the shoulder areas and strip the two left-tun lanes side-by- side or provide a "reversible" center left-turn lane which could be "coned" dunng peak entering and exiting periods. Since the demand for left tun movements at this location would be very "directional" dunng peak periods, the reversible left-tun lane concept would work quite well. Stacking for exiting traffic along the on-site access roads would be adequate. Given the typical peaking characteristics of traffic exiting from a major events, there will be some delays to traffic exiting the parkring lots. With a moderate amount of manual traffic control a key on-site locations, exating traffic would operate in a more orderly fashion with minimal delays. It is our understanding that manual traffic control would be typically provided during major events/shows. Zev Buffman September 21, 1997 Page 3 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Deceleratton and Acceleratton Lane Considerations- As designed, the Western By-pass road provides a cross-section of 33 feet in each direction. WSA proposes that two through lanes (one 11 - foot inside lane and a 12-foot outside lane) be striped in each direction. This would leave a 10-foot outside shoulder area on each side. With this shoulder configuration, which is similar to that provided along Winchester Road east of I-15, inbound right turn traffic movements can be made from the shoulder area. Given the "directional" nature of event traffic, and the ingress/egress distribution of project traffic, there would be negligible weaving movements (inbound right turns across outbound fight turns) at these locations during peak project traffic conditions. Traj~qc Control Features- As previously mentioned, WSA is working with the site engineer on the definition of circulation system lane s~ping and intersection lraffic controls. It is our understanding that the conceptual striping layout is currently being incorporated into the plans. This includes a revised traffic control plan/circulation configuration for the centrally located drop-off/pick-up area. WSA will continue to work with the site engineer and City staff in the refinement of these plans. The intersection traffic control plan generally calls for two-way or all-way stop sign controls at all intersection locations except the main access intersection on the Western By-pass. Although a one- way stop control would be adequate at this location for project Phase I, a signal is recommended for project Phase II. Bus Truck Access Conszderattons- WSA has reviewed the circulation layout relative to Bus and track access. Various intersection curb radius and parking layout modifications have been suggested and are being incorporated in the plans. These modifications would provide the necessary circulation design features to adequately accommodate these larger vehicles. I qncent Moraga Drive Alignment and Parting Access In WSA's August 11, 1997 addendum traffic letter, we discuss the more favorable characteristics of the currently proposed alignment of the Vincent Moraga Drive extension. In this letter we also suggest various access drive locations to on-site parking lots. It should be noted that these parking access suggestions were made prior to reviewing the revised grading plans. Based on the difference in elevation between Vincent Moraga Drive at Ridge Park Drive and the adjacent overflow parking lot, we do not recommend access to the parking lot from this intersection. Zev Buffman September 21, 1997 Page 4 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 1-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Traffic Impacts As further clarification of WSA's discussion of traffic impacts associated with the Temecula Mall project, we are providing the following supporting traffic dam: · The Mall project is projected to add 208 vehicles to the northbound I-I 5 ramp intersection and 116 vehicles to the southbound 1-15 ramp intersection dttring the weekday evening peak hour. · During the Saturday midday peak hour, the Mall is projected to add 284 vehicles and 159 vehicles respectively to the northbound and southbound I-15 ramp intersections. The currently proposed Westside Specific Plan reduces impacts at the interchange by 34 vehicles (northbound ramp intersection and 62 vehicles (mathbound ramp intersection) during the weekday evening peak hour. Similarly the current project reduces impacts at the interchange by 42 vehicles (northbound ramp intersection) and 86 vehicles (southbound ramp intersection) during the Saturday midday peak hour. As can be noted from these traffic adjustments, the estimated reductions in peak hour trips associated with revised Westside Specific Plan project would help in off-setting a significant portion of the added Mall traffic impacts on Rancho California Road at the interchange as compared to the original EIR traffic impact assessment at this location. The mitigative impact of the programmed Rancho Califomia Road/I-15 interchange improvement provides an even more sigm~cant mitigative effect on the added traffic. This improvement, combined with the reduction in project-related traffic impacts would result in significantly better traffic operating conditions than anticipated in the original EIR traffic study, even with the additional Mall traffic. The Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange improvements were not assumed to be completed in the original EIR traffic study analysis and is now scheduled to be completed prior to opening of Phase I of the Westside Specific Plan. Zev Btd'fi~an September 21, 1997 Page 5 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 978-8110. Sincerely, WILBUR SMff[I ASSOCIATES Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Engineer WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, PLANNERS 2300 E:'KATELLA AVE.. SUITE 275" ANAHEIM, CA 928D5'-(:0,47 ,, (714) 978-8} 10 ', FAX (7 }4] 978-1109 October 1, 1997 Matthew Fagan Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Depa~hnent 43200 Business .Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Impact of Temecula Mall Trips on Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center Traffic Analysis Dear Mr. Fagan: In response to your request, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has prepared-the following statement of clarification related to our assessment' of ihe impact of TemecUli'/i;l~ 'il/~i"~n ~e westside Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center traffic analysis. In our letter dated August 28, 1997, WSA addressed the Mall traffic issue which had been raised at the August Planning Commission Workshop for the project., In this lefter, WSA states that the Temecula Mail development would add an increment of traffic to the interchange area roadways which was not specifically called out in the original EIR traffic study. This statement should be clarified to say that the added Mall traffic was not identified 'i~sp~iiifiCaltyi~ as a component of the forecasted traffic but the analysis included an assumption of growth in background traffic equal to 2.1 percent compounded annually. This general' traffic..growlh assumption was intended to account for increases in area traffic related to ongoing and future development projects. Although the Temecula Mall project was not identified specifically,~the compounded t~fic growth. assumption is intended to compensate for .traffic increases related to area development projects Such as the Mall ~Phc ~ubjcct o; Mall b-,fffic iuaioact~ w~,.~ ftudzct cxt~aittled in uta '~t~l;u.~ ~,'tl'atL[i~, ~.i,~,tt[ati~It ..... comments" letter dated September 21, 1997. The estimated reductions in peak hour trips associated with revised Westside Specific Plan project discussed in this letter would further reduce the increment of traffic added by the Mall at the Rancho California Roada-15 interchange. EMPLOYEE'OWNED COMPANY Matthew Fagan October 1, 1997 Page 2 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES In addition, it is also relevant to note that the Westside Specific Plan EIR included a City/General Plan Build-Out Scenario Traffxc Study which addressed long-ten project impacts and ultimate area circulation needs. This analysis essentially resulted in the definition of circulation system improvements needed to accommodate the cumulative traffic conditions which would result from build out of the originsfly defmad Westside Specific Plan as well as the remnining undeveloped portions of the City. The build-out scenario traffic analysis includes full implementation of the Temecula Regional Center. We hope that this added information helps clarify the issue of traffic impacts related to the Temecula Mall. Should you have any questions concerning our findings, ple.~s6. coi~t.'me' (714) 978-8110. .' Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Engineer VISUAL SIMULATIONS R:%STAFFR]xI'~298PA97.PCI 10/2/9"/vg~v 18 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPTB92pA97,PCI 12/10/97klb 36 CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT SgTE PROPEt~ TY ~OUNL~At~ Y ~ ,t,)5 II PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) & SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (BUSINESS PARK) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA - ,/ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT E PLAZA PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA ACCESS ROA~ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT F LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT F LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITI EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT} EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT G ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT H TYPICAL ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT H TYPICAL ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT H TYPICAL ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1997 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA97-0237; ADOPT Resolution No. 97- recommending approval of PA97-0237 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and 3. APPROVE Planning Application No. PA97-0237. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City Initiated PROPOSALS: To amend the General Plan designation for the site from Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial, in accordance with Exhibit A; and To change the Zoning Map for the site from Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial, in accordance with Exhibit B. LOCATION: South of State Highway 79 South, east of Pala Road SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Conservation Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 du/ac) Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 du/ac) Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 du/ac) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant and commercial (Hazit Market and Out-A-Space Mini & RV Storage) SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Temecula Creek Rainbow Canyon subdivision Flood Control facilities and the Riverwalk subdivision Homes by the Green subdivision PROJECT STATISTICS Parcels: 4 Total Area: 12.16 acres BACKGROUND During last year, Mr. Alan Shaw contacted the City regarding his efforts to use the remaining undeveloped portions of the Hazit Market site. In the course of these discussions, it was determined that this, and the adjacent sites are severely constrained. The many onsite limitations, including a major Metropolitan Water District easement, access restrictions, a fault zone, a dam inundation area, and 100-year floodplain and floodway, when combined with the current Professional Office Zoning, severely limit the use of these sites. Staff has concerns that this current situation is an extreme hardship on the property owners because of these potentially severe site limitations and the substantial assessments associated with Assessment District No. 159. In March of 1997, staff contacted all four adjacent property owners to explore the desirability of a City initiated General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone in order to adjust the uses that could be allowed on these properties. Given the favorable response from the property owners, staff initiated Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone) on July 14, 1997. A Development Review Committee Meeting was held July 24, 1997 with two property owners or their representatives in attendance. ANALYSIS The proposal would redesignate the front portion of three of the four parcels as neighborhood commercial and the rear portion of all four parcels as service commercial. (The fourth parcel is already zoned Neighborhood Commercial.) While split zoning is unusual and can be problematic, staff feels that it is appropriate in this situation due to the unique nature of the physical constraints upon the site. The many easements and hazard zones preclude the construction of habitable structures in several areas, and in some areas, prohibit any structures. These many site restrictions were one of the reasons why the former property owner attempted to initiate a swap meet on the site. This proposal is expected to realistically eliminate any future swap meets in this area by providing appropriate alternative land uses. It is staff's belief that doing split zoning in this manner will allow for neighborhood commercial uses, developed in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding residential uses, at the front of the property and provide an opportunity for non-structural or non-habitable structural service commercial uses in the constrained areas behind the neighborhood commercial frontage. Examples of these non-structural service commercial uses could include mini and self storage facilities, construction material and equipment storage, contractor's storage yard, and RV, trailer, and boat storage yards. These uses can be done in a compatible manner when they are set back from Pala Road. The Neighborhood Commercial zoning would require all future development adjacent to Pala Road to be done in a high quality neighborhood compatible style. Responses to the Notice of Public Hearing Staff has received several phone calls requesting information and clarification about the proposal. Residents in the area who have called have expressed concerns about traffic on Pala R:\STAFFRPT~237PA97.PC 12/10/97 klb 2 Road and about illegal activities that have occurred in the area, including the swap meet, semi trucks parked on the street, and trucks parked on vacant portions of site. A letter in protest was also received from the Rainbow Canyon Villages which is attached to this staff report. The letter protests additional business and commercial activity, and the impact of noise, traffic and crime. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An initial environmental study was performed for this project which determined that the proposal could potentially affect geology problems, water, transportation/circulation, aesthetic and cultural resources. The study was prepared for a non-detailed general plan amendment and zone change because no detailed development proposals have been submitted to the City. Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the specificity and detail of environmental analysis should be similar to the detail and specificity of the project. Since the project is a general plan amendment/zone change within commercial land use designations of the general plan, only a general plan level of evaluation is possible. In addition, the impacts of the proposed amendments are accurately described and discussed within the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the General Plan and that the FEIR accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan on City of Temecula and its surrounding areas. However, in an effort to provide as much information as possible, some additional evaluation has been provided. Any mitigation measures identified in this document will be implemented when detailed development proposals are available. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff has evaluated a number of options and variations to try to address the many site constraints and feels that the split zoning is appropriate due to the unique nature of the physical constraints upon the site and will allow the property owners to reasonably and appropriately develop these sites in a manner compatible with the surrounding area. FINDINGS Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Ran Amendment and Change of Zone) as proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The site is already zoned for commercial uses and is already being partially used for commercial purposes. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A - Resolution No. 98-__- Blue Page 7 Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 98-__ - Blue Page 10 Initial Study - Blue Page 14 Exhibits - Blue Page 15 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Proposed Project Zoning ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT ~ CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AM~NDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION PA97-0237)" AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED *AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AIV!R, NDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-018 & 019 & 020 & 032 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237)" WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and WHEREAS, That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Iqall~ Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on December 15, 1997, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED 'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237)" AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENT1TI ,ED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-018 & 019 & 020 & 032 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237)" SUBSTANTIAIJ.Y IN THE FORMS THAT ARE ATrA~ TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBITS A AND B, RESPECTIVEJ~Y. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this 15th day of December, 1997. Linda Fahey, 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 15th day of December, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRFB237PA97.PC 12/10/97klb 6 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:\STAFFP, PT~37PA97.FC 12/10/97 lifo 7 EXHIBIT A RESOLtrrION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AM~NDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION PA97-0237) WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the city, bears a relationship to its planning; and WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan. WHEREAS, Sections 65350 of the Government Code permits a city to amend the general plan; and WIiFREAS, there is a need to amend the Generdl Plan Land Use Map to accurately reflect private property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 1997, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public heating on 1998 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendments to the General Plan I and Use Map The City Council hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Designations on the following parcels as specified below: A. For the parcels identified as APN 950-110-018, 019, and 032: change the Land Use Designation from Office (O) to Neighborhood Commerical (NC) and Service Commercial (SC). B. For the parcel identified as APN 950-110-020, change the Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Service Commercial (SC). Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study, finds that the impacts of the proposed amendments are accurately described and discussed within the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the General Plan and that the FEIR accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan on City of Temecula and its surrounding areas. Section 3. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are sereruble and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this _th day of ,1998. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of ,1998 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:~STAFFRPTX237PA97.PC 12/lO/97klb 9 EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE NO. 98- R:~STAFFKFI'~237PA97.PC 12/lO/97kJb ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ON THE FAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-018 & 019 & 020 & 032 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237) VatEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the Zoning Map to accurately reflect private property and to be consistent with the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public heating on December 15, 1997, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public heating on 1998 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY ZONING MAP The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map for the City of Temecula for as specified below: A. For the parcels identified as APN 950-110-018,019, and 032: change the Zoning Designation from Professional Office (PO) to Neighborhood Commerical (NC) and Service Commercial (SC) as shown on Exhibit A. R:\STAFFRPFx237PA97.PC 12/10/97 klb ] 1 B. For the parcel identified as APN 950-110-020, change the Zoning Designation from from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Neighborhood Commerical (NC) and Service Commercial (SC) as shown on Exhibit A. Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study, finds that the impacts of the proposed amendments are accurately described and discussed within the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the General Plan and that the FEIR accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan on City of Temecula and its surrounding areas. Section 3. SEV~.RABII .ITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 5. This 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 Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the offme of the City Clerk. R:\STAFFRPT~37PA97.PC 12110197 klb 12 Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,1998. Ron Roberrs, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I IW~REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1998 by the following vote of the Council: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:X~TAFFRPT~37PA97.PC 12/tO/97klb 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~37PA97.PC 12/10/97klb 14 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Proposed General Plan Designation: Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP (909) 694-6400 South of State Highway 79 South, east of Pala Road City-Initiated - City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Office and Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial Cleanup General Plan Amendment changing the designation from Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial; and Zone Change changing the zoning from Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial. Vacant properties and flood contxol facilities to the north and east; Riverwalk subdivision to the east; Pala Road, Homes by the Green and Rainbow Canyon subdivision to the south and west. Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water Distxict, Rancho California Water District, Riverside County Flood Control, Southern California Edison, Southem California Gas Company, General Telephone 12. Speci~city of Environmental Review: The project is a general plan amendment and zone change and no detailed development proposals have been submitted to the City, no project-level evaluation of the potential environmental impacts is possible. Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the specificity and detail of environmental analysis should be similar to the detail and speci~city of the project Since the project is a general plan amendment/zone change within commercial land use designations of the general plan, only a general plan level of evaluation is possible. However, in an effort to provide as much information as possible, some additional evaluation has been provided. Any mitigation measures identified in this document will be implemented when detailed development proposals are available. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] [ ] Population and Housing [ ] IX] Geologic Problems [ ] IX] Water [ ] [ ] Air Quality [X] IX] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Biological Resources [ ] [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: [] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATiVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ix] 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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATiVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation m~ based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant Impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. R:\CEQA~37PA97.1ES l~10/97ed 2 ISSUES AND SUPI~)RTING INFORMATION SOURCES pot~tially sisnm~ lmpaet gi~nificm~ Unlen No LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zomg? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-I7) b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use m the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Fi~we 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)7 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) b. Induce substantial growth m an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source I, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result In or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source l, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6, Source 4) b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic heard? e. Landslides or mudflows7 (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) h. Expansive soils? I. Umque geologic or physical features7 [1 [1 [~ [1 [1 [] [1 [~ [1 [1 [~ [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [] [~ [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [] [~ [1 [1 [] Ix] [] Ix] [1 [] [] [~ [] [] [] [X] [] [] [1 [] [] [~ [] [~ [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [1 [x] [] [] [] [] [] [x] R:\CEQA~237PA97.1ES 12/10t97¢d 3 pot~-ntially Unl~ NO 4. WATER, Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainagc paRems, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source l, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10 and Figure 7-4, Page 7-12; Source 4) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or mrbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater7 h. Impacts to groundwater quality? I. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AI~ QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 1, Page 2-29) b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in elimate? d. Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result a. Increase vehicle hips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e. g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? ( ) c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) [] [1 [~ [1 [1 Ix] [1 [1 [1 [x] [1 [] [1 [] rx'] [] [1 [] Ix] [1 [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] Ix'] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [1 [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [] [~ [1 [] [] [xl [1 [] [x] [] [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [1 [~ R:\CEQAX237PA97.1ES 12/10/97cd 4 ISSUES A~D SUPPORTING I~FORMATION SOURCES signm~t,~ Pcen~ally Unless Significant Mitigali~ya NO d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) [ ] [X] e. Hazards or barriers for pcdcsirisus or bicyclists? ( ) [ ] [ ] f. Corfflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) [ ] [ ] g Rail, waterborne or air Irafile impacts? ( ) [ ] [ ] 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including) but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals end birds)? ( ) [ ] [ ] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage Ires)? ( ) [ ] [ ] c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) [ ] [ ] d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? ( ) [ ] [ ] e. Wildlife dispersal or migration con'idors? [ ] [ ] 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] c. Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [ ] [ ] 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. Ariskofagcidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chermcal or radiation)? [ ] [ ] b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emerge'hey evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ ] [ ] d. Exposure ofpeople to existing soorces ofpotential health hazards? [ ] [ ] e. herease fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? [ ] [ ] [1 [] [ ] [x] [] ix] [] ix] [] ix] [ ] ix] [] ix] [] ix] [] ix] [] ix] ix] [] [ ] ix] [] [xl [] [x] [ ] ix] [] Ix] [ ] [x] ISSUES AND SUPPORTING 1NFOPd~ATION SOURCES 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. increase in existing noise levels? (Source 1, Page 8-9) b, Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areau: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? 12. UTILfflES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communj. cations systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or seeroe highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Some 2, Figure 55, Page 280) Pol~atially [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] p~uy si~tieaat Ualem [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] NO [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] p,:] Ix] [:x] [x] p(] [x] [x] [x] [] R:XCEQAX237PA~7.1ES 12/10/97 c,d 6 Pottntially sight impact siwi~cam Unlm No b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1, Figure 56, Page 283; Source 5) [] [x] [] [1 [] [] [x] [l [] [xl [x] [1 [] c. Affect historical resources? (Source 1, Page 281; Source 6) [ ] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) [] e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) [] 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) [1 [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ b. Affect existing recreational oppommities? ( ) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or arnmal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or aremat or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] [] [] [x] [ ] [x] b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ] [] Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects. and the effects of probable future projects). [] [] [] [~ Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [1 [] [] [x] 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. ParcelMapNo. 11984 5. Extended Phase I Survey of CA-RIV-4707/H for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge, January 1997 6. Historic Property Survey Report for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge, February 1997 R:\CEQA~237P,~97.1ES 12/10/97 cd 7 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and planning The project is a general plsa~ amendment and zone change from existing commercial land use designations. The environmental impact of the proposed general plan designation and proposed zoning is expected to be less than significant because Neighborhood Commercial zoning already covers a portion of the site, and is proposed to extend along Pala Road only, up to approximately 1 SO feet from the south property line into the site. Neighborhood Commercial uses already exist on two parcels, and extending such uses along Pala Road to the other two parcels would have less than significant impacts. Service Commercial zomng is proposed for the imerior portions of the site, behind the Neighborhood Commercial zone. This area backs up to flood control facilities on two sides, and will take access across the Neighborhood Commercial uses. The site is cnsserossed with building restrictive easements, a fault line, water course and flood plain. While the Service Commercial zone may allow more intense commercial uses relative to Neighborhood Commercial and Professional Office zones, habitable buildings will be severely limited to only a few locations on the site. There will be limited, if any, environmental effects due to the limited ability to develop the site. Farmland of Local importance has been identified to the north and south, areas upon which flood control facilities exist. Farmnag does not currently exist in the vicinity, which has been developed with single family homes, golf course facilities and commercial uses. The areas designated as farmland are not within an existing Williamson Act Contract, and it is unlikely that farming operations would commence in the future. The effect of the proposed change in land use designation and zoning is less than significant upon agricultural resources or operations. ]e Established communities exist to the east across flood control facilities, and to the south across Pala Road. However, neither of these communities were designed to expand across to the subject site. Commercial designations already exist on the site. The proposed change in designation and zoning does not disrupt the pattern or physical arrangement of communities. Population and Housing 2a There will be an increase in the intensity of commercia uses in those areas proposed for Service Commercial zoning. However, the proposal will not add any more square footage of commercial uses than what was anticipated under existing eommeroial land use designations. The impact to local population projections is considered to be less than significant. Geologic Problems ~g,h Development of the site may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading orfill and expansive soils. The site is located in Southem Caifomia, an area which is seismically active. The City's General Plan identifies two active faults in the vicinity, the Wildomar Fault and the Woff Valley Fault. Parcel Map No. 11984, subdividing the site into four parcels in 1979, identifies a fault line on the site approximately 200 feet from Pala Road. However, according the Riverside County Geologist, subsequent geologic studies should be reviewed to determine the validity of the Map findings. Potential impacts will be mitigated by compliance with State of California Alquist-Prinlo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be a requirement of development and shall contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA~237PA97.1ES 12/10/97 Water 4a Development of the site may result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff should development occur as a result of the land use designation and zone change. However, because of the restrictive easements, fault line, water course and flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a result of the change in land use designations is considered less than significant. 4b The General Plan identifies a portion of the site as being within the 100 year flood boundary of Tamecula Creek. Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 060742-O010-B identifies all but a small portion at the southern end of the site as being within Zone AE, and a floodway on the northern one half. Parcel Map No. 11984 recorded in 1979 conftrrns the limit ofthe lO0year~ood plam u'aversing the site approxtmately mhalf. The Map also identifies a watercourse on the north portion of Parcel 4. Flood control easements already exist along Tameeula Creek. As a condition of the underlying parcel map, the watercourse shall be kept free of all buildings and obsU-uctions in order to convey flood flows. The flood plain shall be kept free of all new dwelling units. Given these mitigation measures already in place at the site, the project is expected to have less than significant impact exposing people or property to water related hazards. 4c Development of the site may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Development will be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CI',PPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. By this compliance, any potential impacts of development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. 4d,e The proposed change in land use designations will have a less than signi~cant impact in changes to the amount of surface water in any water body or impact currents, or impact the course or direction of water movements. Because of the restrictive easements, fault line, water course and flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a result of the change in lend use designations is considered less than significant. 4f-h The proposed change in land use designations will have a less then significant change in the quantity and quality ofground waters. Beeauso ofthe restrictive easements, fault line, water course and~ood plain, development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a result of the change in land use designations is considered less than significant. 4i The proposed change in land use designations will have a less than significant impact in the reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies. Because of the restrictive easements, fault line, water course and flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a result of the change in land use designations is considered less than significant. Air OualiW 5a The proposed change in land use designation will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or prejected air quality violation. Becauso ofthe restrictive easernents, fault line, water cour~e and flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited end well below target floor area ratios of any commercial zone. No significant impacts ere anticipated as a result of this project. 5b,d The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no sensitive receptors in proximity to the project. According to the City's Development Code, standards with regards to the generation of particulate matter, smoke, dust, dirt, ash, odors, toxics and other noxious matter apply equally to all commercial zones. 5c The proposed change in land use designation will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Transportation/Circulation The proposal is located in an area where areawide traffic and circulation improvements have not yet been completed and where occasional traffic congestion has been identified. Area traffic congestion is expected to significantly improve when these scheduled improvements have been completed. This proposal would shift the General Plan end Zoning designations from one commercial designation to another. However, it is R:\CEQAX237P,~97.1ES 12/10/97cd 9 anticipated that because of the limited nature of future development, most sites are siEnificantly constrained with utility easements and environmental site limitations, that a less than significant impact upon traffic is anticipated. The project will have a less than significant impact upon meteased vehicle trips or traffic congestion. In addition, the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge Improvement Project will widen Pala Road from two to four lanes, replace the existing bridge, and improve turning movements at the intersection of State Highway 79 South. This project is anticipated to improve traffic flow and safety in this area. Of the three alternative alignments for the Improvement Project, Alternative 1A was chosen based on engineering, safety considerations, and environmental constraints. The Bridge Improvement Project is scheduled for constnwtion in early 1998. The project will have a less than significant impact upon increased vehicle trips or l~atlic congestion. 6d. Future development will be eonditioned to provide sufficient parking capacity in accordance with the City's Development Cede. With proper mitigation measures, future development is not anticipated to cause significant impacts as a result fithis project. Bi~o~ealReso~ 7.all The site is located adjacent to Temecula Creek and includes four partially disturbed pwperties that range from mostly developed to undeveloped. The two middle parcels have been mostly developed. The most southerly parcel is vacant and covered by non-native grass and tree species. The most northerly parcel may contain some weftand species. However, this sit~ will also be substantively impacted by the relocation end x'~placement of the Pala Road Bridge. According to the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge Improvement Project Wetland Mitigation Plan, both temporary and permanent impacts of the Bridge Improvement Project have been mitigated as part of that project. Any additional, and relatively minor, impacts will be addressed when specific development proposals are submitted. The future development proposals will receive appropriately detailed environmental review. As a result, no additional impacts are anticipated at this time. Ener~.,vandlvlineral Resources 8.8. The project will not impact and/or conflict with adolYted energy' conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for complisnce with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will resuh in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful ~ inefficient warmer. Vqhile there ~ be an hietease in the rate of use of any natural resource And in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, bintuber) And the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the propesad development, these impacts are not seen as significant. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region And the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of fullire value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant ixn~cts are anticipated as a result of this project. Hazards The project will not result in a significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any h-:,-ntons substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. While some retail uses nay have the potential to sell lmT~nlous substances, they are rel~mlated by both the Fire Department And the Department of Environmental Health. Future development must receive clearance from the Depafanent of Environmental He,~lth prior to any plan check submittal. Future develolxnent mnnt receive clearance from the Fire Delmrtment prior to the issuance of a building permit. This applies to storage And use of hnTnrdons materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQAx237Pk97.1ES 12/10/97cd lO 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could nupact en emergency response plan. The project will take access from wainrAined streets and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evec~ion plans. No significant nnpacts are auticipsted as a result of this project. The project will not result in the creation of any health haTant or potential health I~:,Ant. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with the~e applicable laws. Reference response 9.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potentis/health buTards. No health hnT~nds are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an increase to fire }mv~rd in an area with flAmmable brush, grass, or trees. The project is in an area of existing uses and proposed conmlercial uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hnvnrd area, No signiJicant ixupacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise lO.a. The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is peajelly vacsnt and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise leveis during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, the project site is sdjacent to Pala Rosd, designated as a six-lane urbsn arterial re~lway. Ambient noise levels 100 feet from centerline are 61.9 to 62.6 CNEL. According to the City's General Phn, it is appropriate to phce insensitive land uses such as commercial mtjacent to noise generators such as highways. Long-ten noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. Noise impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. lO.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction 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 stesdy 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-tern exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11 .a,b. The project will have a less than sigm~cant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the cost of maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.c. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Tcrnecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of macis 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 made as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11.e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQAX237PA97.1ES 12/10/97cd I ] Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in pwximity to the site. No si~onificant impacts ~re anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to commumcation systems (reference response No. 12.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substsntial alterations to local or regional water treatment or dislxibution facilities. No significant impacts are enticipated as a result of this project. 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an meremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report ff'EIR) for the City's General Plan states: 'both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39).' The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not si~i~eently impact wastewater services (p. 40)." It is anticipated that the proposal to change the designation from Office to Commercial, and the limited nature of future development under this designation, would not signitican~y increase the demand for sys~ms or supplies. No significant impacts ere anticipated as a result of this project. Future development may require additional storm water drainage facilities onsite. However, because this project is a change in General Plan and zomg designations fi'om one commercial category to another, no specific development proposals are being proposed at this time. Any specific development proposal would receave an appropriately detailed environmental review. No significant impacts are anticipated at this time. 12.f The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No signiticent impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics The City does not have any designated scenic highways. However, future developments on the site will be reviewed to ensure that project design provides appropriate aesthetic benefits in accordance with the City's Development Code and Design Guidelmes. No signi~eant impacts ere anlicipated as a result ofthis project. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project, as proposed, is intended to encourage neighborhood commercial uses and appearance along Pala Road, and would locate more intense service enmmercial uses on the interior portion ofthe site. It is entinipated that this layout will require a more neighborhood character in terms of building scale and design and in terms of landscaping adjacent to Pala Road to make future development more compatible with the surrounding area. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated. 13.c. The project will have a potentially si~c, nifi cant impact from light and glare. The projact will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sottrees. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. Future development will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With mitigation measures no signifieent impacts are anticipated as a result fithis project. Cultural Resources 14.b. The General Plan identifies a sensitive archaeological area at the intersection of State Highway 79 South and Pala Road, which may extend to the subject site. An Extended Phase I (Xphr) Investigation was performed dated January 1997 for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge confuming the location of two potential R:\CEQAX237PA97,1ES 12/10/97 c,d 12 concentrations of artifacts in close proximity to State Highway 79. The also study indicated that, cxp~t for one pareally disturbed site, the southerly properties did not have any identified significant cultural deposits. The results of the investigation recommended further studies. A Phase II Evaluation of Archaeological Site CA-RIV-4707/H was prepared in January 1997 which concluded that both the historic component and prehistoric components were not eligible for the National Register. Due to the potential for additional deposits in the area, future development of the proposed site will be required to continue the investigation for artifacts in site specific areas, The potential for future significant impacts will be determined and fully mitigated when future development proposals are considered. 14,c. The project will not have an impact on historical resources. As noted in the Historic Property Survey Report completed for the Temecula Creek (Pals Road) Bridge in February 1997, properties in the area of the Pala Road Bridge were determined ineligible for inclusion in the National Register or the California Register of Historic Resources, and no locally designated landmarks were identified. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a remit of this project. 14.e. The project may restrict existing religious or saered usos within the potential impact area. See Response l4.b. Recreatioll 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of penple to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant trapacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQAX23TPA97.1ES 12t10/97 c,d 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRFI~Z37PA97.PC 12/10/97klb ]5 CITY OF TEMECULA SITE CASE NUMBER: PA97-0237 EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 15, 1997 VICINITYMAP CITY OF TEMECULA '1 IT SITE 5P EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ~, .~' HTC O \ - '~' os ~/~/k ~0 O SITE /' "~ OS 'LIVI .~. ,.,//~' 0 ~ LM /' L EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) CASE NUMBER: PA97-0237 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 15, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NUMBER: PA97-0237 -- EXHIBIT - D PROPOSED PROJECT ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 15, 1997 II ITEM #7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Amendment # 6 to the Palome del Sol Specific Plan) Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: Make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified; ADOPT Resolution No. 97- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0158 Amendment # 6 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: CaI-Paloma del Sol, LLC c/o Newland Associates, Inc. REPRESENTATIVES: T&B Planning Consultants, Inc. PROPOSAL: Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Amendment # 6 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan): Amendment of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and Specific Plan Ordinance. LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Generally located east of Meadows Parkway (north) and Margarita Road (south), south of Pauba Road, north of SR79 South, and west of Butterfield Stage Road Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (SP No. 219) EXISTING ZONING: Paloma del Sol Specific Ran (SP No. 219) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: SP (Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village) SP (Specific Plan No. 227 - Vail Ranch) Low Medium and Medium Density Residential Very Low Density Residential, Professional Office and Highway Tourist Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant/Under Construction R:\STAFFRFI'~158PA97.PC 12/10/97jid ~ SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: PROJECT STATISTICS Single-family residences Vacant/Single-family residences Single-family residences and vacant Single-family residences; Arco AM/PM Summary of Changes from Amendment No. 5 and Amendment No. 6 OLD ACREAGE/NEW LAND USE ACREAGE Medium Density 581.0/ 580.0 2,487/2,483 Residential Medium-High Density 416.5/416.5 2,251 / 2,255 Residential Very High Density 36.3/36.3 590/590 Residential Commercial 32.3/32.3 ....... Neighborhood 17.5/17.5 ....... Commercial Day Care 2.0/2.0 ....... Middle School 20.0/20.0 ....... Elementary School 41.0/ 41.0 ........ Parks or Recreation 31.5/ 32.5 ........ Center Paseos 110.0/110.0 ........ Major Roads 103.4/103.4 ........ PROJECT TOTAL 1,391.5/ 1,391.5 5,328/5,328 BACKGROUND OLD NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS/NEW NUMBER OF DWELliNG UNITS Planning Application No. PA97-0158 Specific Plan) was submitted to the Planning Department on May 12, 1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 17, 1997. All applications were deemed complete on December 1, 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Specific Ran Amendment) is the sixth amendment to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The changes within this amendment have been necessitated by: a recently approved addendum to the project's Development Agreement (Addendum #1 to the Paloma del Sol Development Agreement) relative to the park in Planning Area 29A; the need for consistency with approved tentative tract maps in the specific plan area in terms of roadway cross sections and access points and neighborhood entry statements; the need to bring certain roadway cross sections into conformance with the City's General Plan; and a desire to provide the Community Development Director with the authority to approve minor deviations in the specific plan's standards. ANALYSIS S0ecific Plan Changes The project is an amendment to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (Amendment # 6). The proposed modifications associated with this amendment to the Specific Plan document involve minor changes. These changes include: 1. Overall project acreage and the number of dwelling will remain the same. 2. The park in Planning Area 29A is being increased in size from 4.0 to 5.0 acres. 3. The amount of acreage in Planning Area 28 has decreased by one acre and the number of dwelling units have decreased from ~ 17 to 113o 4. The decrease in the number of dwelling units in Planning Area 28 is being transferred to Planning Area 2. The number of units in Planning Area 2 have increased from 116 to 120, 5. Roadway Cross Section (Figure 5B) has been modified to reflect roadway sections consistent with cross sections of approved tentative tract maps (TTM's). 6. Throughout the document, access points and entries have been relocated to conform to approved tentative tract maps (TTM's). 7. Throughout the document Streets "G" and "H" have been assigned the name "Capanula Way ." 8. The Phasing Plan (Figure 16) has been revised with more current expectations. 9. Wording has been added within the Land Use Development Standards (Section 1 .b., page 111-9) which gives the Community Development Director the authority to approve minor variations (deviations) from the standards established in the Specific Plan, without requiring a Specific Plan Amendment. This provision would be similar to the Minor Exception process found in the Development Code. 10. Figure 111-23 is being changed to require the construction of the Park in Planning Area 29A prior to the 174th building permit in Planning Area 23 or the first building permit in Planning Areas 26 or 28, whichever occurs first. The changes have been reflected in the documents transmitted to the Planning Commission in the form of redlined (shaded) items for additions to the Plan and strikeout items for deletions. R:\STAPFIL~wl~158PA97.PC 12/10/97jid 3 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The Current General Ran and Zoning designation for the site is Specific Plan. No changes are being requested for either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance or map. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City of Temecula General Plan EIR was certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Ran No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. In addition, an Addendum to that EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Ran. Based upon this information, it is Staff's opinion that due to the scope of the proposed Amendment, there will be no change in the scale or magnitude of the development and consequently there will be no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending the Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is an amendment to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and consists of minor changes in the document. The overall units and density within the Specific Plan will not change. Based upon previous environmental review for the project, Staff is not requiring any additional documentation for the project. FINDINGS Planning ADi01ication No. PA97-0158 (Amendment # 6 to the Paloma Del Sol Soecific Plan) Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Amendment #6 to Specific Plan No. 219), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Amendment #6 to Specific Plan No. 219) is consistent with the City's General Plan. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of the modification to an existing Specific Plan, with no changes to the overall density or the number of units. Ultimate development of the site will be consistent and compatible with the existing land use in the area. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 235. The mitigation measures prepared for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project. Attachments: PC Resolution (Planning Application No. PA97-0158 - Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Specific Plan Ordinance (Included Under Separate Cover) - Blue Page 10 Exhibit B. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11 Initial Study - Blue Page 14 Exhibits - Blue Page 23 A. Vicinity Map Specific Plan Text (Included Under Separate Cover) - Blue Page 24 R:XSTAFFRPTXISgPA97.PC 12/10/~/jld 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:~STAFFRPTXI58PA97.PC 12/10/97jid 6 ATrACHIVfRNT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158 (ZONING AMF. NDMENT # 6 OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN SP NO. 219),' WHICH IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SR79 SOUTH, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD AND WEST OF BU'ITERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950-020-001 THROUGH 950020-004, 950-020-009 THROUGH 950-020-025, 950-020- 027, 950-020-029, 955-030-002 THROUGH 955-030-004 AND 955-030-006 THROUGH 955-030011 WHEREAS, Newland Associates filed Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) on December 15, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219); NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RF~OLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Eiacliag~ The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219), makes the following findings, to wit: R:\STAFFRPTXI58pA97.PC 12/lO/97jid 7 1. Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment #6 to Specific Plan No. 219), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment g6 to Specific Plan No. 219) is consistent with the City's General Plan. 3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of the modification to an existing Specific Plan, with no changes to the overall density or the number of units. Ultimate development of the site will be consistent and compatible with the existing land use in the area. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding propony, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219. 5. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 235. The mitigation measures prepared for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula General plan EIR was certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. In addition, an Addendum to that EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Based upon this information, it is Staff's opinion that due to the scope (a decrease in the overall density of the projec0 of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, there will be no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. The Commission hereby determines that the project is consistent with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified. Section 4. ~ That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance substantially in the form contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) substantially in the from contained herein on property generally located north of SR79 South, east of Meadows Parkway (north) and Margarita Road (south), south of Pauba Road R:\STAFFRP~lSgpA97.PC 12/10/97jid 8 and west of Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 950.020.001 through 950-020-004, 950-020-009 through 950-020.025, 950.020-027, 950-020-029, 955-030-002 through 955-0304X~ and 955-030-006 through 955-030.011, subject to the following conditions contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of December, 1997. Linda Fahey, 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 15th day of December, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:XSTAFFRPTXI58pA97.pC 12/10/97jid 9 EXHIBIT A SPECIFIC PLAN ORDINANCE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158| Included under separate cover R:\STAR:RFfXlSSPAg'7.PC 12/10/97jid 10 EXHIBIT 'A" ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158 (ZONING AMF~NDIVIENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219),THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SR79 SOUTH, EAST OF MARGAR1TA ROAD, SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD AND WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950-020-001 THROUGH 950-0204)04, 950.020.009 THROUGH 950.020.025, 9504Y2J}-027, 950020-029, 955-030-002 THROUGH 955-030-004 AND 955-030-006 THROUGH 955-030-011 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ~ The City Council in approving Planning Application No. PA97- 0158 (Amendment # 6 to Specific Plan No. 219), makes the following findings, to wit: 1. Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Amendment #6 to Specific Plan No. 219), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment [Amendment #6 to Specific Plan No. 219]) is consistent with the City's General Plan. 3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists of the modification to an existing Specific Plan, with no changes to the overall density or the number of units. Ultimate development of the site will be consistent and compatible with the existing land use in the area. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to The planned land use of The area, due to the fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219. 5. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not increase The impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 235. The mitigation measures prepared for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula General plan EIR was certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. In addition, an Addendure to that EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Based upon this information, it is Staffs opinion that due to the scope (a decrease in the overall density of the projec0 of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, there will be no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. The City Council hereby determines that the project is consistent with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified. Section 3. ~ That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Amendment #6'to Specific Plan No. 219) on property generally located north of SR79 South, east of Meadows Parkway (north) and Margarita Road (south), south of Pauba Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 950- 020-001 through 950-020-004, 950-020-009 through 950-020-025, 950-020-027, 950-020-029, 955-030-002 through 955-030-004 and 955-030-006 through 955-030-011, and conditioned in Exhibit "B', attached hereto, and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "B~, in incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 4. This 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 Councilmembers voting for and against The Ordinance, and post The same in The office of The City Clerk. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this 13th day of January, 1998. Ron Roberts, Mayor A'ITI:~ST: 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. 98- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of The City Council on The 13th day of January, 1998, 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 13th day of January, by The following roll call vote: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS June S. Greek, City Clerk EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAI~FRPT~158PA9'/.PC 12/lO/r/jid l l EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) Project Description: Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment [Amendment # 6 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan]): Amendment of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and Specific Plan Ordinance. Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Thirty (30) Days From the Second Reading of The Ordinance Approving the Amendment The applicant shall submit the Amended Specific Plan text to the Planning Department. Failure to submit the amended text within 30 days shall void this approval. General Requirements The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application No. PA97-0158 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et sea., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. The applicant shall comply with all underlying conditions of approval for Specific Plan No. 219, and its previous amendments, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. The amendment to the Specific Plan text shall conform with Attachment No. 7 (Specific Plan Text). R:\STAFFI~3'~lSSPA97.PC 12/lO/9?jld 1~ 5. The amendment to the Specific Plan Ordinance shall conform with Attachment No. 8 (Specific Plan Ordinance). COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The City's park land dedication requirements shall be satisfied with the dedication of a 5.0 acre neighborhood park identified in Planning Area 29A. The design of the 5.0 acre in Planning Area 29A shall provide for pedestrian circulation and handicapped accessibility pursuant to the American Disability Act (ADA) standards. The installation of all landscape materials and irrigation equipment for the public park and the landscaped medians shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications and all applicable TCSD standards. Construction of the 5.0 acre park and landscape medians proposed for dedication to the City shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. 10. The 5.0 acre park facility shall be dedicated to the City 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. 11. The developer shall complete the TCSD application and dedication process prior to the acceptance of street lighting and landscaped medians into the respective TCSD maintenance programs. 12. All private parks, paseo/open space areas and perimeter slope areas shall be maintained by an established Home Owners' Association (HOA). OTHER AGENCIES 13. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittal dated July 10, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 14. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated July 9, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 15. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 24, 1997, a copy of which is attached. R:~STAFFRPT~I58PA~7.PC 12/lO/97jid l~ July 10~ 1997 Riverside Transit Agency Mr. John De Gange City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92550 RE: Planning Application No.'s PA97-0158, PA96-025g, & PA96-0259. Dear Mr. De Gange: Pursuant to the City's previous request referenced October 9, 1996 . RTA staff concluded a plan review for projects PA96-0258 & PA96-0259. In our initial review, we recommended for PA96- 0258 a turnout on the far-side (East side) of the intersection of "AA" Street and De Portola Road, and for PA96-0259 a turnout on the far-side (North side) of "F' Street and Meadows Parkway. The Applicants most recent amendment to the above referenced plans does not include or address the recommended transportation amenities. The Riverside Transit Agency believes addition of these amenities to the project during initial construction will be advantageous and beneficial to the surrounding development. We would urge that the Applicant be encouraged to do so. Sincerely, Stephen C. Oller Director of Operations & Transportation Resource Development SCO:AM:cam John F. Hennigar PhiUip L+ Forbes Kenneth C. Deal3, Linda M. Fregoso C. Michael Cowetl Best Best & Krieger LLP July 9, 1997 Mr. John De Gange, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL MAPS 24182 AND 24183 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158 Dear Mr. De Gange Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water Distdct (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Any existing RCWD facilities that require relocation due to the development of this project will be the responsibility of the developer. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT M""'~,p,~_ ~ ~ ~ Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 97/SB:ebI23-2/F012/FCF c: Laurie Walllares, Engineering Services Supervisor TO: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: John De Gange DATE: July 24. 1997 FROM: J'.}~E)HN C. SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer RE: A97-0158-PALOMA del SOL AMENDMENT #6 AND PA96-0258.:_&~_[_PA~9~O~59 (Revision to Tentative Tract Map No. 24182 & 24183. respectively) WATER/SEWER: John C. Silva. P.E.. Senior Public Health Engineer Our comments to the above project will remain as stated on 07-16-96. If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. JCS:dr (909) 275-8980 enclosure County of Riverade DEPARThIENT OF ENVIRONI%IENTAL HEALTH DATE: July 16, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA PLAI',~ffNG DEPARTMENT ': ...... ,:: ....I' :' :. ATTN: DebbieUbnoske .... _ :. JOHN SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer PALOMA del SOL CFormerly The Meadows at Rancho Califo~z0_...' WA TER/SEr~ER: (John Silva. P.E.. Senior Public Heahh Engineer) The following conu'nents are offered regarding the proposed project: WATER SUPPLY - Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District will both sen,e the project. The estimated volume of water needed to sen'e the various activities should be provided. SEWER SYSTEM - Eastern Municipal Water District will provide sanitary sewer sen, ice to the entire project. The waste water will be treated at Eastern's Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The estimated volume of wastewater generated from the project needs to be provided. RECL.~.I~{ED WATER: Page III. - 30 of tile documenB advises float 251 acres of overall recreation and open space is available to tile project. included will be 86 acres for tlle Rancho California Sports Complex; 28 acres for "Greenbelt/Paseo Systen~s;" Etc. The estimated volume of reclaimed waer needed to sen,e this project needs to be calculated. In doing so, Eastern Municipal \Vaer District can project the demand for reclaimed water usage throughout the project. It is entirely possible Illat the water supply denland could equal the reclaimed water demand(s). Therefore, no fresh water or domestic drinking water would be needed to irrigate the development. If you should have any further questions regarding the above document, please do not hesitaie to contact me at (909) 275-8980. JS:dr ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRP'~I58PA97.1~C 12/10/97jid CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: City of Temecula Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment #6 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (SP 219) City of Tamecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 John De Gange, (909) 694-6400 South of Pauba Road, east of Margarita Road, north of SR79 South and west of Butterfield Stage Road Cal-Paloma del Sol, LLC c/o Newland Associates, Inc. 9404 G-gnesee Avenue, Suite 230 La Jolla, CA 92037 Paloma del Sol Specific Plan SP (Specific Plan) The project consists of a Specific Plan Amendment. The overall density and number of dwelling units within the Specific Plan will not change. This Initial Study will be conducted using the previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and EIR Addendure as baselrues for the analysis. North: South: East: West: Single-fanuly residences Vacant/Single-family residences Single-family residences and vacant Single-family residences; Arco AM/PM Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Rancho Califomia Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, California Department of Transportation, Temecula Valley Unified School District, Riverside County Health Department, Riverside County Flood Conlxol and Water Conservation District This Initial Environmental Study has been prepared to compare the impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendments and the Specific Plan Amendments to the original General Plan EIR and Specific Plan EIR. Only those environmental impacts beyond those identified in the original environmental documentation will be discussed here. R:XSTAFFRPrXI58PA97.PC 12/10/97jid ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would b~ potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as mdicat~l by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [ ] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation, I fred that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and have been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. No further analysis is required. R:XSTAPFKPT~I58PA97.PC 12/10/97jid 16 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOP,~ATION SOURCES pc~ntially pt~lfially NO 1. LAND USE AND PI.,kNNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict wi~a general plan designation or zoning? [ ] b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with junadiction over the project? [ ] c. Be incompatible with exisfmg land use in the vicinily? [ ] d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from mcempatible land uses)? [ ] e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ~stablished community (including low-income or minority commumty)? [ ] 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? [ ] b. Induce substantial growth in an area either direc~y or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infi'astructure)? [ ] c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving.9 a. Fault rupture? [ ] b. Seismic ground shaking? [ ] c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [ ] e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or~ll? [ ] g. Subsidence of the land? [ ] h. Expansive soils? [ ] I. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [] [I [1 [1 Ix] [xl [x] [xl ix] R:\STAFFRPT~ISgPA97,PC 12/10/97jid 17 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOPav[ATION SOURCES pot~tially Unlm Significant Mitigatie~ Si~iti~tnt No 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoft'? b. Exposure ofpeople or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration ofsurface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through m~rception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability7 g. Altereddirectionorrateoffiowofgroundwater? h. Irapacts to groundwater quality? I. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or con~ibute to an exisfmg or projcoted air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c. Alter air movemant, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result In: a. Increase vehicle trips or lnffm congestion7 b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c. Inadequate emergency acoess or access to nearby uses? R:XSTAFFRFBI58PA97.PC 12110/97jkl 18 [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] IX] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] P<] [] [] [) [x] [] [] [] [~ ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES pol~llillly Signifigant Po~r~i~lly significant No d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)7 g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 08. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be ofthture value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (inclucrmg, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. Thecreationofanyhealthhazardorpotentialhealth hazard? [] [1 [1 Ix] [1 [1 [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] R:\STA~158PA97.PC 12/lO/97jid Signiliam simi~m NO d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with finable brush, grasS, or 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in u need for new or altered goverameut services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Mamtenanceofpublicfacilities, mcludingmads? e. Other governmental services? 12. UTIL[IIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in at need for new Jystems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water trealment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? g Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scemc vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [] [1 [l [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] R:\STAFFRPTXlSgPA97.PC 12/10/97jid 20 Pom~i~d~y Impaft c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Res~ct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affectexistingrecreationaloppoaumties? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNI~'ICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or arereal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Dues the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Dues the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulstively considerable" means that the hierernental effects of a project are considerable when viewed m connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d, Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either dimefly or indirectly? [l [] [1 [~ [1 [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [1 [x] [] [1 [1 [~ [] [] [1 [~ [1 [1 [] [~ [1 [] [1 Ix] [] [] [1 [x] R:XSTAFFRPTxlSgpA97.PC 12/10/97jid 17. EAllLIFR ANALYSES. The City of Temecnia General plan EIR was certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. In addition, an Addendum to that I~R was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The project contains a number of minor changes and modifications to the Specific Hart that do not increase the scope, scale or magnitude of the previously approved development. Based upon this information, it is Stales opinion that due to the scope of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amerdraent, there will be no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Enviroumental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no fur'ther environmental analysis is required. Staff is recommending the Commission make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified. R:\STAFFRPT~IJ8PA97.PC 12/lO/97jid 22 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\STAPFP, PTXISgPA97.PC 12/10/97jid 23 CITY OF TEMECULA VILLAGE GROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158 EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 19967 VICINITY MAP ATTACHMENT NO. 3 SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0158) Included under separate cover R:~STAFFP, F'BI58PA97.PC 12/10/97jid :24 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD ALBERT S. PRATT 1A• Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: ( California Registration: Civil Engineer No.7697 Structural Engineer No.650 Monday, December 15, 1997 Temecula Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Subject: Planning Application No. PA97-0392 (Conditional Use Permit) Applicant: TEV, Inc. (Zev Buffman) Members of the City of Temecula Planning Commission: In your deliberations,you are appointed to see the "forest not the trees". The "forest" is all of the citizens of Temecula and their continuing concern over all impacts on their daily environment. The "trees" are a select group of Old Town merchants and property owners, and other special business interests supported by a biased City government. We want to save our "forest", all the citizens of Temecula Location: of the Project West of Old Town Temecula(100 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive and east of the City's western border, within the City's Westside Specific Plan.. Proposal: The design and operation of a total of 203,300 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters and shops and associated improvements (hardscape, parking and landscaping) on 16.5 acres. Reference Documents which are a matter of Record with the City of Temecula and are included by reference in support of this appeal: Case No. 280260— Certified Administrative Record of the Proceedings of the City of Temecula concerning the City's 1996 Approval of Modifications of Portions of the Conditions of Approval for a Master Conditional Use Permit, A Tentative Tract Map and the Westside Specific Plan. Trial Date: October 25, 1996. Volumes 1 through 6. Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Applicant: Forest City Development, Inc. � 1 ALBERT S. PRATT Temecula, CA 92591 ( California Registration: Civil Engineer No.7697 Structural Engineer No.650 Temecula City Manager's Letter of June 20. 1997 A.S. Pratt Letter to Temecula Planning Commission of June 2, 1997 A.S. Pratt Letter to Temecula City Manager, Temecula City Council, Temecula Planning Commission and Temecula Redevelopment Agency of June 29, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan— Appeal), Hearing of August 4, 1997 at 7:00 PM Addendum to Appeal filed on July 21, 1997, Applicant: Forest City Development, Inc., Appellant: Albert S. Pratt, Dated August 4, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan), Applicant: TEV, Inc. (Zev Buffman), Dated October 6, 1997, and all documents Appellant, Albert S. Pratt has submitted which are part of the Record of the Proceedings. Added reference material: Inland Empire Business Journal, Volume 9, Number 12, December, 1997, portion of Page 5, Article "RogersDale USA Brings Western Theme to Temecula", by Rebecca Jo James (attached). Partial quotes from the article: " `This was a battle that I was not prepared for' said Zev Buffman, key executive with the Temecula Entertainment Center. 'A series of opponents played hard ball with personal attacks and character assignations.' 'But contracts between the Roy Rogers family and Temecula have been signed sealed and delivered—sounding a death knell to the battle'. 'And the merchants of Temecula will be throwing the final gauntlet, but this time at Sam Pratt'. 'They have united and hired a major law firm out of Los Angeles to file a lawsuit against Pratt,' Buffman said. 'They feel he has cost them their livelihood and loss of income.' RogersDale USA will be the biggest live entertainment project in Southern California since Universal City Studios was built, said Buffman." These statements absolutely certify my allegations in the above referenced documents of record with the City and presented before the Planning Commission and City Council. This Revised/Expanded Project is only a small "piece" of the "biggest live entertainment project in Southern California since Universal City Studios was Built, said Buffman." "How can you people say, on the one hand, that this project will be bigger than Universal City Studios, and on the other, that you don't need an EIR? Don't the people of Temecula deserve to know what this project will do to their city?" 2 ALBERT S. PRATT Temecula, CA 92591 ( California Registration. Civil Engineer No.7697 Structural Engineer No.650 Annual attendance noted in the Price Waterhouse Report prepared for the Original Old Town Redevelopment Project in 1993, (University City Studios)was 5,000,000 patrons a^-•••-"- r^••-_• ., ' +,.r we could expect an additional 1,000,000 patrons annually. This is 6,000,000 patrons per year. To put this in perspective this is 115,385 patrons per week. With 80%on Friday and Saturday, 46,138 patrons per day on the weekends or each week end day equals the total population of Temecula. This is not acceptable for this community. It is impossible to mitigate this amount of additional traffic. This is probably the largest"piecemealing" of a project ever encountered in California and violates CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Quoting from the Guide to California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), Authors Remy, Thomas, Moose and Yeates, page 183, "Thus, because the expansion was reasonably foreseeable, and was likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects, the ETR should have informed the public and decision makers of the impacts that were likely to result from the expansion.". I contacted the office of the publisher, by phone, of the Inland Empire Business Journal. The dead line for articles to be published in the December, 1997, issue was November 20, 1997. Mr. Buffinan had full knowledge prior to this date of his plans. As the principal Applicant in this proposed, immense project, was in constant contact with the City of Temecula, Planning Department, Planning Commission, City Council, City Manager and other support departments within the City management structure. The Planning Commission and City Council had full knowledge of the Applicants plans yet approved "piecemealing" of applications in violation of CEQA and GEQA Guidelines. This Planning Application PA97-0392, is yet another attempt to deceive the taxpayers and citizens of Temecula on the immensity of the proposed project. This is no longer a comment on the adequacy of a"staged" traffic analysis, but on how to cope with a "traffic disaster". In the last City Council meeting, approval was given for an Assessment District to float $30,000,000 in bonds. This will allow the applicant to use "public money" for the construction of access roads, site improvements and enough left over to build the Wild West Arena and start this immense project without the Applicant having to fmd private fmancing. In addition, a Community Facilities District is planned to maintain the project. How can our elected and appointed officials supported by the City Manager and Staff deceive those who elected them and pay taxes to support them? 3 ALBERT S. PRATT Temecula, CA 92591 ( California Registration: Civil Engineer No.7697 Structural Engineer No.650 The statement: "`They have united and hired a major law firm out of Los Angeles to file a lawsuit against Pratt,' Buffman said." This statement abridges, Albert S. Pratt, my public right of protest of a project which I feel is detrimental to the environment of our City. The City Council should not allow such comments to occur, but protect my rights as an individual, and those rights of the several thousand registered voters who are in opposition to this project in Temecula. I intend to contact the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) and ask if the comments by Councilmen Lindemans; "that he intends to get rid of me once and for all", and City Manager Bradley's malicious public attempt to discredit my testimony on traffic in the Forest City Mall Appeal violated my right of protest before a public body, and particularly enforced with the knowledge they had of the magnitude of the proposed Buffman Project, and the City's involvement. Application PA97-0392 must be denied. The many public comments by our elected officials, the City Manager and those in support of the Buffman Project apparently do not understand our position. We are opposed to any public money, indirect support such as Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, Redevelopment Districts or any entity where public funds can be funneled into private development projects. CEQA does require the decision makers to consider alternative sites in order to reduce significant impacts. "I therefore propose that you prepare a supplemental or subsequent EIR to consider, among other requirements, an alternate location for RogcrsDalc that would reduce the tremendous impacts on traffic". CEQA Public Resources Code Section 21002, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15065. We suggest the Applicants consider the area of the Glen Elen Ampitheater developed by Zev Buffinan. San Bernardino County is familiar with the financial paths required for public funds to be funneled into private entertainment projects and the location is adjacent to the I-15 Freeway, the major artery to Las Vegas. RogersDale can be developed in a location much closer to the Apple Valley area in which they are now established. Aset 't r,• i 1 ill i Albert S. Pratt 4 11`114q1 INLAND EMPIRE BUSINESS JOURNAL•PAGE 5 y Bank Committed RogersDale USA Brings Western Theme to TemeculatheI7by Rebecca Jo James Buffman has side-stepped this rvineles the and DECEMBER 1997 its particular battle. Now, with the It's only a couple of blocks long Rogers family on board,he is getting -eportingk"\ " �`" of and nestled in the foothills of the on with the business of RogersDale ins and ►. , r, m- Temeculavalley.But many a war has USA.This means putting together an Sept. 30, r SchoO]s ic been fought over lesser ground, and honorary board — with Angela on, 11.3 - _` _eir the war in Temecula is no different. Landsbury agreeing to be his first 996, lev- production lines. These factors, In spite of warring factions, member. 1 million accompanied by the general eco- RogersDale USA in Old Town "Collectively, Roy and Dale ase from nomic growth, allow us to join in Temecula has triumphed over a five- have been in the entertainment busi- 1 deposit the successes of our client base," year battle lead by Sam Pratt. ness for 60 years," Buffman irs to the commented Russell M. Moore,first "This was a battle that I was not explained. "We are going to have a ax earn- vice president and manager of the prepared for," said Zev Buffman, friend of theirs on board to represent mmunity Inland Empire Commercial key executive with the Temecula every year — sixty stars for sixty --EnTertamin�nt Center. "A series of years." opponents played hard ball with per- RogersDale USA will be the ,. " sonal attacks and character assassi- biggest live entertainmentproject in ." nati� 5i 'Yns. gouthem California since Universal _mut contracts between the City Studios =zap hitt said Ro ers family and Temecula have Buffman. been signed,sealed and delivered- "We don't have anything to cel- ounding a death knell to the battle: ebrate the Western culture, music or • t.��; And the merchants of Temecula heroes of the past," Buffman said. i, will be throwing the final gauntlet, "Wherever you go in the world, but this time at Sam Pratt. when people ask about America, flank's Inland Empire Management team is shown here: "They have united and hired a they relate it to the Old West. Old 9rian Raymond Debra Goodus, W.E. "Scott"Burger ,uss Moore,Scott Miller,Hector Gutierre4 Steve von Rajcs major law firm out of Los An elves t_o Town Temecula is the weekend-in- file a awsuit against Pratt,"Buffman the-country feeling that we were try- relation- Banking Center. Community said. ` el he has cost therrL _ ing to achieve—go back 100 years rs. Bank's commercial banking centers their livelihood and loss of income." into the west. 50 years offer real estate loans, accounts rd Cook, receivable financing and working At deadline ... tablished capital lines along with a wide latives to range of cash management and continued from Page 3 borrow from the city and county of inies in a international services. San Bernardino. 'alifornia "Continued bank mergers in said. "And it looks as if we'll break Agencies that don't agree to city Bank the Inland Empire and throughout even that record." contribute financially to the airport )ire pres- Southern California offer an oppor- It took six years for the center to will be forced off the airport authori- ;e of the tunity for Community Bank to sell its first 100,000 cars and just 40 ty board. Colton Mayor Karl Gaytan, Inland demonstrate its personalized months to reach the 200,000 mark, a member of the airport authority, ig offices Partnership Banking® approach to according to Lamparter. said the city is prepared to do its part. s, San business. `Customer service' is an The move was the latest in an and over-used term in the banking Airport Asks Cities for Funding 18-month struggle to fund the air- ecialized industry,and with many institutions port. As part of the struggle, local iter sup- - it is almost an oxymoron.The larg- The San Bernardino Inter- municipalities rather than bond er banks use a standardized deliv- national Airport authority decided in investors have taken on the financial ke reside ery mechanism to meet customers' late November to ask four local cities burden. ommuni- needs, treating each client the same and the county to continue funding The major issue is whether the in local and allowing no deviations. Every the airport. airport will be able to pay its operat- -,raaniaa_ day ww,a hayo rnctnmPrc trancf,rriner