HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-037 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 02-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
THE OLD TOWN SOUTHERN GATEWAY
LANDSCAPING/ROTARY PARK EXPANSION PROJECT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping/Rotary Park Expansion
Project is proposed by the City and includes landscaping, pathways, benches, arbors and the
development of educational interpretive areas relative to the environmental, historical and
cultural relationship of Temecula's Old Town and Murrieta Creek areas; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping/Rotary Park
Expansion Program will provide enhancement above and beyond the environmental mitigation
required as a result of the recently completed First Street Bridge Extension over Murrieta Creek;
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local
CEQA Guidelines require City staff prepare an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment No. EA-
93) of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Based upon the findings
contained in that Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the
project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been
prepared. A copy of the Initial Study and the Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration are
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period
and of the intent to adopt the Negative Dectaration as required by law and copies of the
documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department
of Community Development, located at.City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Ca.
92589; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments
received regarding the Negative Declaration;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as
follows:
Section 1. The Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA.
Section 2. There is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Section 3. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis
of the City Council.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-37 1 -
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
14th day of May 2002.
on~obo~s, Mayor
ATTEST.: ..-¢-----. I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 02-37 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on this 14th day of May 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-37 2
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration
PROJECT:
Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping/Rotary Park Expansion Project
Environmental Assessment No. 93
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
LOCATION:
Northeast and southwest ends of First Street Bridge in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
DESCRIPTION:
The proposed development of the Old Town Southern Gateway
Landscaping/Rotary Park Expansion Project will provide roadside
recreational improvements including landscaping; hardscape and
greenways, pathways, benches, arbors and the development of.
educational environmental and interpretive areas. The proposed project
will incorporate two parcels of land located at the northeast and
southwest sides of First Street Bridge at Murrieta Creek, between Pujol
Street and Front Street in the City of Temecula~ This project will
provide additional parkland and roadside recreational opportunities and
will compliment regional efforts to construct future improvements within
Murrieta Creek.
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon
the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this project as proposed,
revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the City Council
intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. The mitigation measures required to reduce or
mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment are included in the project design and/or the
Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this Notice and will be included as part of the
Negative Declaration for this project.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is April 12, 2002 tO May 12, 2002. Written
comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the
following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-'9033. City Hall is located at
43200 Business Park Drive. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided
through:
___~ The Local Newspaper. __ Posting the Site.
__ Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact Emery
R:W..A~ea93~IOTICE OF PROPOSED NE(} DEC EA 93.doc
I
Papp, Associate Planner at (909) 694-6400.
Emery Papp, Associate Planner
(Name and Title)
IL'W..A~9~NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEG DEC EA 93.doc
2
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Agency Distribution List
PROJECT:
Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping/Rotary Park Expansion Project (Environmental
Assessment No. 093)
DISTRIBUTION DATE: April 12, 2002
CASE PLANNER: Emery Papp
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety ............................................ ( )
Fire Department .............................................. ( )
Police Department ........................................... ( )
Parks & Recreation (TCSD) ...........................
Planning, Advance .......................................... ( )
Public Works Department .............................. (,/)
City Attorney ( )
STATE:
Caltrans .................................... : ................. .~.... ( )
Fish & Game ............
Mines & Geology ....................... ~ .................... ( )
Regional Water Quality Control Bd ................ ( )
State Clearinghouse ......................................... ( )
State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) .................... (,/)
Water Resources .......................... i .................. ( )
............... ( )
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers ................................ ( )
Fish and Wildlife Service ............................... (~').
................. ( )
................. ( )
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District .................... ( )
Western Riverside COG .................................. ( )
............ ~-( )
RSEA~ag3~qOTICE OF PROPOSED NEG DEC EA 93.doc
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning .............. .~ ........................................... ( )
............... ( )
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Airport Land Use Commission ....................... ( )
Engineer ................. : ........................................ ( )
Flood Control ................................................. (,/)
Health Department .......................................... .( )
Parks and Recreation ....................................... ( )
Planning Department ....................................... ( )
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ........ ( )
· Riverside Transit Agency..: ............................. ( )
..~ ............ ( )
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water DishSct .................. (,")
Inland Valley Cablevision ............................... ( )
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ........... ( )
Southern California Gas .................................. ( )
Southern California Edison ............................. ( )
Temecula Valley School District .................... ( )
Metropolitan Water Distfict..:....~....i ............... ( )
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation .......................... ( )
Eastern Information Center ............................. ( )
Local Agency Formation Comm ..................... ( )
RCTC ............................................................. ( )
Homeowners' Association:: ............................. ( )
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 wh'ose
approval is required
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Old Town Southern Gateway Landscaping/Rotary Park
Expansion Project
(Environmental Assessment No. 93 )
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Emery J. Papp, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400
Northeast and southwest ends of First Street Bridge
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
North: Community Commercial (CC)
South: Open Space (OS)
North: Old Town Specific Plan (sp-5)
South: Conservation (OS-C)
The proposed development of the Old Town Southern
Gateway Landscaping/Rotary Park Expansion project will
provide roadside recreational improvements including
landscaping; hardscape and greenways, pathways, benches,
arbors and the development of educational environmental and
interpretive areas. The proposed project will incorporate two
parCels of land located at the northeast andsouthwest sides of
First Street Bridge at Murrieta Creek, between Pujol Street and
Front Street in the City of Temecula. This project will provide
additional parkland and roadside recreational opportunities and
will compliment regional efforts to construct future
improvements within Murrieta Creek.
N: Community Commercial (CC) and High Density Res. (H)
S: Service Commercial (SC), Open Space (OS), and H
E: CC and SC
W: Public Institutional (PI), H, and OS
None
R:'~Sa,~ea93'tEA93 lES Old Town Gateway and Rotary Park.doc
1
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 Impactu as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
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
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 measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze Only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
Printed Narfle
Date
fOr
R:~EA\ea93~.A93 lEs Old Town Gateway and Rotary Park.doc
2
Project Locations
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Sig~ficant
Impad
· No
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Wo.uld the proposal:
1 ,a. Conflict with geoeral plan designation or zoning? (1,3)
1.b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2)
1 .c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1)
1,d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(2)
1.e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including Iow-income or minority community)?
(1)
Comments
This project will be constructed on vacant land with land uses currently designated for open space, or
directly adjacent to existing open space. The proposal will have a direct and positive impact on
neighboring high density residents along Pujol Street.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
!.a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? ( 1,2)
2.b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2)
2.c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(1,2,3)
Comments
2.ail I This project will not create a demand for additional housing or cause an increase in population. This
I
project will not replace or reduce opportunities for affordable housing.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
Expose people to potential impacts involving?
Fault rupture? (1,2)
Seismic ground shaking? (1,2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2
3.d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( 1,2)
3.e. Landslides or mudflows? ( 1,2)
3.f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill? (1,2)
3.g. Subsidence of the land? ( 1,2)
~.h. Expansive soils? (2) ./
,~.i. Unique geologic or physical features? (2)
3.a. v~
3.b. v'
3.c; ,/
R:~F_.A~ea93',F_.A93 lES ~ld Town Gateway and Rotary Park,doc
3
Comments
The proposed use is for passive recreational opportunities. The site is located within a potential
liquefaction zone, however, there will be no permanent structures other than picnic tables, benches and
arbors. The only exposure to risk from geologic problems is so remote, that they are considered to
have no impact on this project.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4.a. Changes in absorption.rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and mount of surface runoff?
4.b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding? (2)
4.c. Discharge into sudace waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
4.d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
4.e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
Movements?
4.f, 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?
4..q. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
4.h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
4.i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater. '
Otherwise available for public water supplies?
,/
/
Comments
The drainage patterns for the sites involved in this project will remain unchanged, The amount of
· hardscape involved will be insignificant in terms of altering absorption rates. Groundwater will not be
affected by this project, therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
5.a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
5.b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (2)
5.c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any
change in climate? (2)
5.d. Create objectionable odors? (2)
Comments
5.all I The creation of a passive roadside park will have no impacts on air quality.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
6.a. I Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (2,3) I I
R:~A~ea93'~.A93 lES Old Town Gateway and Rotary Park,doc
4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections or incompatible uses)? (2)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (3)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
impact
impact
This park expansion project will not cause an ~ncrease in vehicle trips or impact the amount of existing
parking. Adequate street parking and access for pedestrians and bicyclists is available along Pujol
Street.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal result in impacts to:
7.a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)?
7.b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1,2)
7.c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
Coastal habitat, etc.)?
-.7.d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
)'.e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Comments:
The project will incorporate a fence along Murrieta Creek to reduce the potential for human interaction
with sensitive habitat. This project is also in conjunction with required mitigation for construction of the
First Street Bridge that will replace riparian habitat in and along Murrieta Creek, thereby improving
habitat for native species.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
8.a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1)
8.b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? (1,2)
8.c. 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? (I ,2)
Comments:
8.all I This project will not consume energy or non-renewable resources.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)? (1,2)
R:~EA~ea93~_A93 lES Old Town Gateway and Rotary Park.doc
5
9.b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
9.c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
9.d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
,hazards?
9,e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or
trees? (1)
Comments:
A vehicular accident on the First Street Bridge could possibly lead to an accidental explosion or release
of hazardous substances, thereby exposing users of the park to potential hazards. This potential
already exists, and is considered a tolerable risk, The expansion of the park will not increase the
potential of this risk. Additionally, Eastern Municipal Water District owns and operates a sewage lift
station to the west and adjacent to the Rotary Park Expansion area pamel. In the event of a spill at the
lift station, park users may be exposed to odors and untreated wastewater. The possibility of a spill at
the lift station is considered to be unlikely and a less than significant risk.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
10.a. I Increase in existing noise levels?
10.b.I Exposure of people to ·severe noise levels?
Comments:
10.all This project will not contribute to existing noise levels. Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project'
site are within acceptable 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:
11.a. Fire protection? ,,'
11.b. Police protection?
11.c. Schools?
11.d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
11.e. Other governmental services?
Comments:
11 .all I This project will not have an impact on any public services.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: Would the pi'oposal
Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
Alterations to the following utilities:
12.a.
12.b.
12.c.
12.d.
12.e.
R:~EA~ea93'~_A93 lES Old Town Gateway and notary Park.doc
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
6
I Potentially
Significant
Issues and Suppo~liag Inforrrlath3~l Sources Impact
"-"~2.f. I Solid waste disposal?
2.g. Local or regional water supplies?
Significant U, nless Less Than
Mitigation Signfiice~t
tnc~rpomted ~mpact
Comments:
12.all I This project will not have an impact on any utilities or service systems.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
13.a.
13.b.
13.c.
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2)
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic affect?
Create light or glare?
Comments:
13.all This project will have no negative impact on scenic vistas or visual corridors. The addition of park land
adjacent to Murrieta Creek will have a positive affect on views in this area.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
14.a. Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2)
14.b. Disturb archaeological resoumes? (1,2)
~14.c. Affect historical resoumes? (1)
~4.d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1)
14.e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? (1)
Comments:
14.all
There will be no excavation or grading activity associated with this project that could uncover
paleontological, cultural or historical resources. No resources will be disturbed or changed as a result
of this project.
15. RECREATION.. Would the proposal:
15.a.
15.b.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? (1,2)
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Comments:
15.allI This project will create additional opportunities for recreation, thereby reducing the demand for park
I
and recreation opportunities in the area.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
.~ 6.a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
R:~EA~ea93~EA93 lES Old Town Gateway and Rotary Park.doc
7
16.b.
16.c.
ISSUes and Suppor~ng I~formatior~ ~rJr~S ·, j;' .:ii~p[~c[:. ~ed : .l~np~ct I
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a ram or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to ,,,
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumu!atively 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).
16.d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
Comments: This project will have no impacts on the immediate surrounding area, or to the City as a whole.
The site may potentially be impacted by unforeseen catastrophic events, or other events that are beyond the
control of the City. The exposure of park goers to seismic events, liquefaction, or man-made hazards on the
First Street Bridge is minimal and considered a tolerable risk.
EARLIER ANALYSES.
SOURCES
City of Temecuia General Plan.
City of TemeCula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
City of Temecula Development Code and Official Zoning Map
R:~,A~ea93~EA93 lES Old Town Gateway and Rotary Park.doc
8
Old Town Southern Gateway
Landscaping/Rotary Park Expansion Project
Legend
~ Highways
Centerline
Parcels
50 0 50 100 Feet
November 13, 2001
R:~daucrj~GRANT$~F..EM-2002-03 C-rant $ ubmltlal~eem.Proj eciCfit~rla.doc
Il '