The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About062007 PC Agenda g In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE June 20, 2007 - 6:00 P.M. ******** Next in Order: Resolution No. 07-22 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Commissioner Guerriero RollCall: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissio'n about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "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 for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2007\06-20-07.doc COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project{s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 1 Planninq Application No. PA06-0338. a Development Plan. submitted by Rick Conroy representinq C&R Architects. for a proposed three-story commercial/office buildinq totalinq 29.409 square feet. located on the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and 5th Street within the Old Town Specific Plan. Christine Damko. Associate Planner. 2 Planninq Application No. PA07-0154. a Site Plan Modification Application. submitted by Forest City Commercial Development. to chanqe a buildinq footprint. drive aisle. parkinq orientation. and landscapinq of the approved Temecula Promenade Mall Expansion Plans. located at the Promenade Mall between Macy's and Edwards Cinema within the Temecula Reqional Center Specific Plan in the City of Temecula bound by Winchester Road to the north. Marqarita Road to the east. Overland Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west. Cheryl Kitzerow and Matt Peters. Associate Planners. 3 Planninq Application No. PA07 -0111. a Maior Modification. submitted by McArdle's Associate Architects. to an approved Development Plan for Elite's Plaza which includes removinq the at-qrade parkinq areas from the first floor of Buildinqs Band C. and replacinq them with approximately 11.351 square feet of additional office space for Buildinq B. and approximately 13.680 square feet of additional office space for Buildinq C. reversinq the buildinq footprint of Buildinq C. and addinq a 53.763 square foot. three-story. 132-space parkinq structure to be built on the east side of the proiect site. located east of Jefferson Avenue. approximately 500 feet north of Rancho California Road. and west of Interstate 15. Katie Le Comte. Assistant Planner. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Wednesday, July 18, 2007, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2007\06-20-07.doc 2 ITEM #1 DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 20, 2007 Christine Damko TITLE: Associate Planner Planning Application No. PA06-0338, a Development Plan application for a proposed three-story commerciaVoffice building totaling 29,409 square feet generally located at the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and 5th Street [8J Approve with Conditions o Deny o Continue for Redesign o Continue to: o Recommend Approval with Conditions o Recommend Denial [8J Categorically Exempt (Section) (Class) 15332, 32, In-Fill Development o Notice of Determination (Section) o Negative Declaration o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanning\PC\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 1 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Rick Conroy representing C&R Architects, Inc. Date of Completion: November 7, 2006 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: June 20, 2007 General Plan Designation: Community Commercial ZDning Designation: Old Town Specific Plan Site/Surrounding Land Use: Tourist Retail Core (TRC) Site: Vacant North: South: East: West: Existing retail buildings (TRC) Vacant/Existing retail buildings (TRC) Palomar Hotel (TRC) Penfold building (TRC) Lot Area: 12,730 square feet Total Floor Area/Ratio: N/A Landscape Area/Coverage: N/A Parking Required/Provided: N/A BACKGROUND SUMMARY On February 16, 2006, Ms. Martina Masarani, representing Walt Allen Architects, submitted Planning Application No. PA06-0338 for a Development Plan with a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 38,157 square foot mixed-use building with commercial on the first floor, office space on the second and third floors, and residential/commercial on the fourth floor. On April g, 2007, the project was heard at the Old Town Local Review Board meeting. Staff presented the project to the Board but requested that the project be continued for 90 days in order for staff to conduct a massing study out of concerns for proposed four-story buildings within Old Town. On April 27, 2007, the project was resubmitted by Rick Conroy representing C&R Architects, Inc. with the elimination of the fourth floor, which excluded the residential units. The project now consists of commercial and office uses, which eliminates the need for a Conditional Use Permit. G:\Plannlng\200S\PAOS-Q338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\PlannlnglPC\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 2 On May 14,2007, the project was heard at the Old Town Local Review Board Meeting. Staff presented the project and the Board provided comments of support. The Board unanimously recommended approval of the project with a vote of 5-0. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Site Plan The project conforms to the development regulations of the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) zoning district in the Old Town Specific Plan. The building setbacks meet the minimum requirements of the Specific Plan. A covered arcade spanning over eight feet along Front and 5th Streets allows the front yard setback to be reduced to zero. The building spans the entire lot, which is permitted in the Old Town Specific Plan. The project fronts onto Front Street with an existing alley located to the south of the project. The Specific Plan does not require that parking be provided for commercial and office uses, therefore no parking is proposed. Architecture The project proposes two distinct architectural styles including Queen Anne and Classic Revival, which are consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan design guidelines. The architectural styles are appropriate for the late 1880's to early 1920's era, which is expected within the Old Town boundaries. The proposed elevations achieve a historic look and overarching design to create a prominent building in Old Town with strong character as well as function. The architect used different styles of architecture on one building to create the look and feel of three different buildings. The first style of building located closest to the corner of 5'h Street and Front Street is an interpretation of Queen Anne architecture. A classic look is created through the use of an abundance of details such as white faux siding, fancy gable spires, detailed balconies and building columns, pitched roof, and dramatic bay windows fronting the street corner. Adjacent to the Queen Anne architecture are two different Classic Revival architectural interpretations. The middle portion of the building boasts a more stoic feel with wider columns, simpler design, and a clock element on the third floor finishes the simple yet sophisticated feel. This portion of the building is constructed of smDoth trawl stucco that completes the Classic Revival look. The third segment of the building is also Classic Revival but uses different materials such as brick to complete the look of a different building. The simple, timeless design of a brick building is represented here with tubular steel industrial inspired balconies along with satin finish sheet metal awnings. The south (facing alley) and east (rear) elevation carries the same brick material with the top balcony and top enhanced with a decorative brick detail. Landscapinq The project proposes to improve the existing landscaping located within the public right-of-way and to include benches for the public to sit, relax, and enjoy the Old Town experience. Trees G:\Planning\200S\PAOS-G338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PC\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 3 such as Crepe Myrtles and London Plane species along with daylilies and fortnight irises are also proposed. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on June 9, 2007 and mailed to the property owners within the required six hundred (600) foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects). 1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project proposes a commerciallretail building within the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) zone of the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposed building meets all setbacks, parking, and development codes. The proposal is consistent with the current zoning and general plan designations. 2. The proposed development occurs within City limits on a project of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project is located with the City of T emecula and is less than one acre. 3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The project site has been previously graded and included structures on site. No sensitive biologica/ habitat or species is located onsite. 4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The Zoning and General Plan expected this type of use to be developed on this site, therefore all impacts were reviewed under the General Plan EIR. 5. The site can be adequately seryed by all required utilities and public seryices. The site will be conditioned to install all utilities and improvements before issuance of occupancy permits. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDA TION Staff has determined that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Old Town Specific Plan, and Design Guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Planning Application No. PA06-0338 based upon the findings and with the attached Conditions of Approval. G:IPlanning\200S\PAOS-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanning\PC\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 4 FINDINGS Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010FI 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with applicable requirements of State law and the ordinances of the City. The proposed project is located within the Community Commercial (CC) land use area of the General Plan. The proposed project is a development application, which will not change the business use of the site. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety am and general safety. The proposed architecture is consistent with the architectural requirements as stated in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. The proposed architecture is consistent with the architectural styles found in California between 1890 and 1920. The architect has created a building that employs many of the key elements found on buildings of the required time period. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map- Blue Page 6 2. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 7 3. PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 8 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval 4. Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 9 G:\Planning\200S\PAOS-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PC\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO.1 VICINITY MAP G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Oev Plan\Plannlng\PClPC STAFF REPORT. doc 6 \ , \ \ '. \ .. \ \ \. , , .. \ \ \ .. , \ ~ \ \ \. \ .. \ \ , , , .. , , , " .. '" " , \ " " , , , , '. .. , .. \ , .. \ .. , \\, , \ \. \ , , , \. .. .. , .. \ \ Notice of Public Hearing City of Temecula I PA06-0338I Legend ~.. ~.. ..~ "" o , 45 90 180 270 -Feet .'.- . J--r ~, / f;-/-" ':_..;:,/ ::; .~. This map was made by lhe City of T emewla Geographic Information System. The map is derived from base dala produced by the Riverside County Assessor's Department and the Transportation and land Management Agency of Riverside County. The City of T emeo.da assumes no wananty or legal responsibiity for the monnation oontained on Ilis map. Data and lnfumIalion represented on this map are subject to update and modilication. The Geographic Information System and OCher souws shouk! be queried for the most current infonnatioo. This map is not br reprint orresala. R'GIS\A.aronM\$MS Templates\sms_lemplate.mxd ATTACHMENT NO.2 PLAN REDUCTIONS G:\Planning\2006IPA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\planninglPCIPC STAFF REPORT.doc 7 110 I. ,I ~i~ .. . ;!;.n o~~ j )5 i ~l. ~~" - lit " " ! ~I ... II e;oj ~-i 1!1 ~iil o~ ~~ ... ~ 1-' I ll~ I I I I il ill ~ .. C ~ .:11\ .l l-' II ~ ~ , ~,' Oil. ~ ~ a .:I o ~ I. I ~ I ! I. ,Ii' ~ ~lL ~ ~ III!u I I ,Ii I I '" I l II n! I I 1 i I q i I ill 111I1111 b i wild III II i! II ~ III II ! Ill! ml!m lnl, fUli! 11~1'lhl ~ ! Ii II i i ~ i i. I !I~i mUm Mh ,11M ~1!1i I,I! ~ 'i .! I .j I n II II I II II II II III I " I llil!ll!!!ll!!!il!!!lglll!!illlll! ," I . I Ii II I Illll! i, I!I! !1111! I lll; III II II! ; !iil!!!!lll!!!!!llllllll! llll !l!jl!I!II!!llll!!l!UI!!~I!.l,Illl!ll!lll!hlllll IlIJII!!ll!!ll!!lllllmlllll!ll!III!!!III!!!III!!llllil!!llllllll!!ll!!I!!lllllll!!I!I! I iiI . i 'I ~ ,I: ~ 'Iii . l,i!iI!i Iii !! - - --. @ a II lau i ' , ..~! I I I .hl ~ B B BU. I ! III ! 1Ilillml H l HW! l!l mil' Jillli!II!11 ~ ~ ....".,- I- ;;:.i~:;:;,<:o~"I:;!::; i~ ! ,. ,- ,- f! I I !l~ I !- !- 1_ i II I IIi 11;- !- !- I I " II. I' I f'~ I I- !. ,- I ! j II i 'I I I ! II II 11M .! ! IIW llu !III III iI ~ Q ~ !.. !II IH I III Ii I" :-R a 11 1 ~ iJ --- I III ~( ~I~! I :Ii :Il:ii ~ I" !! 1111 ~u f I II: , ii i Ii i Ii i Ii; " Iii Ii Iii' !hl! !hI! !hI! I-i!; I'i!; HI; i!lil ill!! ilm Ii ;u; "I ~u; ":IB I 'tii .t~i ! 'tli Ii llli i IIIi i lIIi III .1 II II II II III II II :i:~ ,i,W I I!il iJ "1'1 ~ "' lll'j I" ml I I !!!~ I; ~ II I I 1111 IllIll!l Ii 111I1!n !iii ! I -- IUnllii dmlbi II diiilHi III! ,..! ;j ;; i'ln'*tl~ !!i:n!~m.u 'i"ltIIU~r~~lli !&~I~- i __ 1I "1I ii. I i I I I II ! ! ll!!lll ll.l, I I ' 1,11'1 . I . I .. I II I I I !I r:n ~ Il'ij .1 [l] I'''''' LJ~~ :\\r!ll . . , . I I · &U! ~:J !!~i i EI~ Ii I! II ~i~ ~l . -10' - j. ~i! -~Ii; II ~~o j ~~ ~ I!J ~ ill -~i ! , 5E! ~~I I., ~~ Iil <II I I I il~ CfJI ! . , I I I ~ Iii I . I i i : II I II Ii; d _I J'a~ a I i 'ill! !hlll !Il ,; ~ . Ii . l I' I,' 11.11 III I 'il'I' III I I il',' !'Il il'! I 'II ,II I ill! 11'. I II hlllll !!ill Illl ! III o ~...~.. .~. ~ ,L.,t tit., m ~ I M '/ N ~ N , m !i: if 0: I ~ i1: , @ I . I ... o ~ ~ '?.... ~ 5> ~ ~ 9 N N m ~ ,~, 11 , II ~Uljr-t _______1 _ _ _ _~J~-...=-;;F i! L1:> ---r---'-~ . , 1 , , I , , I . I , , I , , I , , I , , I , , I , . I , , I ! ! , I , , ~ , ",J ' ;tJ ... "'<ljJ...m M q N N m if ~ :ij 9 I~ ... ,'/ " '::I ~ 1m ;! " .< , I , , I , , I '-'l! J1.....I;.~...1 ;I~l;''''.'rli . u.- IIII .. -,'oj 11.1 f') a !~191 "-'" ~ll!'" ,~ 'c ~mm..il"'m .............. ,-'I ,"",\ ,-'{ -f . ~ ~ m .~ o 13EHllS Hl:ll:l ,~> 'I I, ~, Iii ... "' "' 0: ... " ...1 " o 0: U. " ~ o ... " ~I I " o / l~: z ~ ~ ~ z o o ~ ~ " '" = o z '" z ~ ~ ~ w, o-~ iDl " B!1 I. I ~i~ . Ii . -: lil o~m d -0,,, ~ . ~. l ~~ C! II ~~i Hi I ;;;;: , I!J ~ .'1 .. ~I ~ ! ili' I ~i 1fi . I . 1 . , ! ! I II I I i . In hll II --------------- ------------ - -----------, I I 1111 I: I " I -- - - ~ I ,-~ -. :c,-~:. ~- I " ~" -1.': . I i I ,=~ n ~,:' = ~~ ' ! i I: :~~::? ~ I j i ~ i , ' 'I II ' ~." , !. .1 I ~~g!1 I ~ I' ". I:~'(~ IIr~-.-:.1 ' i --' _U4--+-- :~ a; : I : '" 'I! I ~ I ! I' 1m I' ~ ~~~I' ~ , 0 ~~8~ , , """--T , , I I II i I~.i '~M' I!I ---..L---l.--- , , I I t- ------r--- , , -I- _L II , ~ I ~ ~.. i ~~g. r- ~ I~ z < L ~ ~ :;;! -, ;;:, "II B~I!1 -~I!! Ifhij! :;: I d II 'ld -~a 6~~ ! il~1 j ~~" I ~~g " I ~~~. , I i JllII ,I ' . J~ I I ! "1 I~h! I -q-~- l7 I ~ L , ....- I ~ I ===============~===r~ ! I ~ I . . , , '~ ' ~ I ' , I s" I ~~~~ ! i ~~gg ~~~gt : :! I , , 1 I~~~~ ~ i 'I ' f : I ~ 8 : I ~ _ I t7 I ~..~ I ( '~~Si~ -rr-- 11 r7 i I i " ~ I . . I ~ I \ I i i I ,,~.~ I I : I l!'1I...g:!- ~'r: __________ ~.lI --~------- - F-" ----,::- .,:j---'--- --- ~' i I ~~..I : I ~i~gi I : , I I . '" ",' ""SI ----- I , , I I I !z ~~ ~"' Q ~:;! I <i , i "0 ,l'.' .! . I; ~ c o ~ z o. ~; I!I!I ti .. g~lj! _81': miil! ~ . I I Ii ~~! -~~ 5:;0 .~ ! ;,j!m i ..~. I ~~g ... I ~~~ ~~I, i I ~JUJlI ~I b ~~ '" I i <'! ~ eej i i II , I ,~ ! ~ _J \ I ~.~ ! ~~gl ~rr- L . r-7 I ~ , ---------------~---l--. ' I ~ I --------------------1- . ... ...... : . , , :! I . . I IIJ , . ' , I ~.. I ~~". !! ~~g. - ~<W L-Lh- I. ~ i i! i ~ . I ~ I t7 I ~".~ I ( ,~~~~~ -rr---- I': r' i I i " ~ I . I I ~ . Ii! I ~.' I \.;-'--'-~-r'-~ : . ~~ g 3 I ...,.....~ f'~ r: "1- i "T i --=-' ~n~~,! . , , <~ . ! (:.- & . ~ ~ ~.. II ~~gl ----- ~ < L = = ~~ -. "'. ra~i!l ! ~~! ~im . d + -il ~~ I ~a 0 -~!;l -~~ ~~i I. . N, !5o ~ <(I I!J ~ 'I' I .~ I <l~ I c . , I . . I I I i I ~ i II ! i II II ~ ' , i i II , , , , 0- i~ 0-- Ill: ill" c....f 0-_" 0-- 0-- _ - -~- ---0 0-- , , II , , II I I z 0 ~ " w m Cl z 0 ~, -, ~l , b '. " '. lh i i "1 I , ____~e-o I ---t--- III , . I , I I , ---+---- , I , I ------ ---t--- , I , I , ------- ---L- , I , I ......i,...-+ ~ , b i ~ i ~ !l; ; I; --0 ----0 ~.1 U t"1 [: -: --8 o - ----B --0 . ---0 z '" - ----4 u. 0' o' ~l EJ~I!! -I'll!! 1!1 ~ ill :it . ~ i I . I I I!! .1 · ! 1,1 I' I! I Ii I,ll II ! Ill! 1I1111llllUllll Ii 111111 ,lllll!l! ElGO ' -""GGGG0 , I I q Iii l' ,I, I. ,. I'll I' I I! nil :11111 I 1 1.11 II I'plll II III II dpl GOO I , """"GElD oGGEI II ~i5 ~iI' ~~ -i ~.~ j ~~' ! I c~~ " ~ ~ , I i Ii i I ! II lil~ ; ;,j . ! clim ".. -.~ I5d~ .~ I C> ~i I Ii 8-- 8-- - 8--- " ' I -I I . .1 III If I. 11111111 Ilil 0---- ~ !l III ill II h II ,1l1l,lnll I I! If Iii GElGEI" III GGGEI (0---- 8---- ~ - - ::: :;; 0----- --- ~ ~ z ~ ~ -. :::. ~, 1:30 I. I! u~m -~I . ~ ill j ~ ~~ -~Il; oJ " ~I" ! II "" , II ~S~ ui ... iil;:; """I m~il! .~ I ~~ ~~ I , 1 I I I i'I Ii II . i ! ! I I I I . Ii i , III I! II I I q II ,1.1 I, jl II II II II II! , 'I l!lill' II Ill!, 'I ~- II !.II , IlllI U 88888880 , ,. III l! 'I I I I, ,I, 1, I! ! 'I" 1111 Ii ~I I ! i n 1, j! !I fl j ,1.1111;' !','l Ii II II Ill!! I, 888G00000 , II I . 1'1 !I ,. ,j Ii II 1"1 iiI lllil II III I! ~ Ii III 'I ,I! ~ lumdllllllll gG080G8G8 ~ --=1 :;:, , , ~ I ! I .- B~ II ,I -I~ ,. . -I" ~~! j )" ~ . .j! h~ -~w ! ~~ m "! Ii -~~ ~~; "" , m~iJl 60 ~~i ... ~~ ~ <Cl . I ~~ I 'ill , . ~ Ii II . ! ! I i i I I I . 'i . ! ! II 'jl II I . I I I ,II "! ! I II" IljPIl1111iujl It "I'!I", Ii Iii,,! II d I "ll ill I GGCJGGGCJI!] , II. ! I q ,I i '1,1, '; I! I I 1111 II ~! ! I I ! 1!I!j! !l fl I I 1.lI'lil I, I I , I III II l! II I . CJCJGGGGG8G I II ! . 1'1 I' I. ., II 'I 1"\ i1/ II iii I, d'll l!l Ii ill I} III ~ lnilldll:: illI i G GGG GGG8 &-- ~ ;: ~ = ~~ 5:; 1:'-!I~1!1 I:iI . I! -~lll I!J i'i ill ~ ' I I I , Ii . ! I! I II II I III II lid II illll,lll,ll, Illl1l1 l! 1I, II III 08888080 , I' Il i II ,I II,. ""~ I I! 1111 ,PIll I' IHI jl II (l 111.11111' !I'll 01111 II II , . 8G88G0B8B , Ii ! . "1 I' ,. ,I iI II Ii ,I i1! II Iii I, d !ll l!i II' 011 'I II ! ~ hdllllll ~ IlIll 188GB 8888 ,I .. ~ -"! ~~" j U~ I. I d.~ I ~ u.m ='"" -il~ 15~~ ! , iI I )ii ~il' ii ~ i5 ~ ! i <"'! ..... . "'"'I . , i II 8---- 1 " --., ! I I ,- j , I , I , ~- , I , I , I , I , I , I , i- , I , I , I , I , I 0- I , I , I , I , I , I , I 0- I , I , I , I 0 I ~ ;::: I ! ; _ _1-=-1 ~ I &-- &---- .J . ~ --:OlI.<=;,".l,"ll4I:.l":--O ~S3UrlO'<'jHOUV3lmlt Um:' ..-. ll\IWllllr.l . lijllJ:)l1JH~3cN:)S(ltffl d'lOllO \IlQMfl't o -----------~....... __"4 , "OTl'oort:ll YHlO ~'~ 3NOVZ'9'1dNMOlO1O l1::&"QW " I, 111~ I I 'III. ~~IM ,I~ Iii I~~l~! ---'- --------------'- -,t--------- : 11'-..'''''''''''''''.1. I I I ,---t-~~~-.,,=-- ---------- ----------------1.-----------, . I,!: I I I , , 1 1 . . ----\.-_____L....___ -, 1 , , ! I " I. . : ' ;( ., : ..../ II . 133I:lJ.SMa:! . !I ~~, # ;:; 1:.::1 "l"h~1i ~; ~ ,0 -.8 ~ .a ai 'Z ~ ~i' Wi, z :s 0.. !t! ~. :s! 0..1 1c! ~! ::d ~i i I , i I I II II II I ij i I' I II m!! I Ii ma · I .... !!~Ull ! II UiH ~ i I 'lit ~..u.. '" I III 'I',' ,il.,~! I Ii Illil! 'j I I II I I 'Ii 11,1,111 ! I ! II II i M I ,I ll'~ i .! ~ llil"'l.!1 110 q I 0 ~ 0 @.. !: -------- ----=- . -I I' !~ I ~.I ! !!l I II "~I m,l ',I" h! ~ i :11 Hil I 'I !I!l HII.., I mli, , .I ii~11 ull. !l I' . , I , . -j;frWr I! !, . -"~",-","",'".--.'" ~ I: !l! C v I .. ll: II. i!l I",~ O~t:; C.,~ i. a: <l c:I~<:) >\Q~ ~~~ I:~!,< ~:e~ I III " a: f2 I II. <:) " Ilill!ll 1111"1 1 '.. Il;m~l!rf ".""""'''--'''.'; ,.",.},.. ,"" ~ . I , ; i t i' - - ---, I ---1--..3" r, -.4'; I: I I I 'V I I I I I I I I II I I / I I : I II I I I' I :/ I J . I I' I I I' I I " I I ....1/ I I ~' I 'I : :1 I --.-..--------- '-,- /_. . . iii . I . I lid I !~ II ... Ii' i I I I I i~i; I j IIII ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 07"_ G:\Plannlng\2006\PA06-033B Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PC\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0338 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PROPOSED THREE-STORY COMMERCIAU OFFICE BUILDING TOTALING 29,409 SQUARE FEET GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND 5TH STREET (APN: 922-033-008, 009) Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 7, 2006, Ms. Martina Masarani representing Walt Allen Architects filed Planning Application No. PA06-0338 (DeYelopment Plan) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Old Town Local Review Board, at a regular meeting, reYiewed and provided comment on the Application and enYironmental review on April 9, 2007 and May 14, 2007, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. C. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and enyironmental reYiew on June 20,2007, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. E. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approyed Planning Application No. PA06-0338 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution haye occurred. Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approYing the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Deyelopment Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with applicable requirements of state law and the ordinances of the City; The proposed project is located within the Community Commercial (CC) land use area of the General Plan. The proposed project is a development application, which will not change the business use of the site. The project, as G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\POPC RESOLlITION NO.doc 1 conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and fire and building codes. 2. The oyerall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, and general safety; The proposed architecture is consistent with the architectural requirements as stated in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. The proposed architecture is consistent with the architectural styles found in California between 1890 and 1920. The architect has created a building that employs many of the key elements found on buildings of the required time period. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the. development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3, Enyironmental Compliance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be Categorically Exempt from further environmental reyiew (Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Deyelopment Projects) Section 4, Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA06-0338, a Development Plan for a proposed three-story commercialloffice building totaling 29,409 square feet generally located at the southeast corner of Old Town Front and 5th Street subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PC\PC RESOLUTION NO.doc 2 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 20th day of June 2007. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 07-. was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of June 2007, by the following yote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Camm Dev Plan\Planning\PC\PC RESOLUTION NO.doc 3 EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PC\PC RESOLUTION NO.doc 4 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA06-0338 Project Description: A Development Plan for a proposed three-story commercial/office building totaling 29,409 square feet generally located at the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and 5th Street Assessor's Parcel No. 922-033-008, 009 MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Commercial Office, Retail, and Service Commercial RetaillService Commercial Expiration Date: June 20, 2007 June 20, 2009 Approval Date: WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. 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 Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning 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)). G:\Planning\2006\PA06-Q338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanning\pCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS G:\Planning\200S\PAOS-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 2 Planning Department 2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final Conditions of Approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, adYisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reseryes the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 5. This approval shall be used within two 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-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 6. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within 30 days prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. (Sign program may be required). 8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approyed site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 9. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, thl) decision to the Planning Commission for its decision, Material Color Queen Anne: Roof Grand Manor asphalt shingle by Certaineed, color: Georgian Brick G:\Planning\2008IPA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanning\pCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 3 Siding Cemetitous fiber board, colonial smooth, 8" wide, color: Vista Paint Shell White 32 Classic Revival- stucco: Stucco Smooth trowel finish- Merlex stucco, color: P2091, finish, hump and bump blend over P40 fog (Vista color 4879 Sandal wood tan) Fabric awning, color: Vista paint color Old Brick 8613 Awnings Classic Revival- brick: Brick cornice Corbelled thin brick veneer Coronado stone products or Eq-color:Rustic used brick, caramel mountain Thin line modular brick veneer Coronado stone products or Eq-color: Rustic blend Brick veneer 10. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 11. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 12. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. Public Works Department 13, A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 14. 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. 15. All improvement plans and grading 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. 16. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent post-construction water quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent non-permitted runoff from discharging offsite or entering any storm drain system or receiving water. G:\Planning\2006IPA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 4 17. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be accepted by the City prior to the initial grading plan check. The WQMP will be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and include site design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment mechanisms. Fire Prevention Bureau 18. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 19. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 hour duration. The 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. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A). 20. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road( s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B), 21. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2). Community Services Department 22. The developer shall contact the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent for a pre-design meeting to obtain TCSD design specifications for landscaping along Old Town Front Street. 23. The landscape plans for Old Town Front Street shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD. Utilities for TCSD maintenance area shall be metered separately. 24. All retrofit needed to existing TCSD maintained area shall be included on the landscape plan and the cost will be the responsibility of the developer. 25. Construction of the parkway along Old Town Front Street shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the developer, TCSD Maintenance Superintendent, Building and Safety inspector and Public Works inspector. Deyeloper shall comply with City and TCSD review and inspection processes. G:IPlannlng\2006IPA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanninglPCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 5 26. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for the maintenance of the future TCSD maintained areas until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. 27. The trash area shall accommodate a recycling bin, as well as, regular solid waste containers. 28. The Applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. 29. The parkway along 5th Street, on site lighting, landscaping and fencing shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. 30. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. G:IPlanning\200S\PAOS-Q338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Plannlng\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc S PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS G:\Planning\2006IPA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 7 Planning Department 31. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 32. The following shall be included in the Noles Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavationlconstruction of the site, archaeologicallcultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at hislher sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult andlor authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeologicallcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeologicallcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or. other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." Public Works Department 33. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conseryation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 34. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conseryation District is required for work within their right-of-way. 35. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reYiewed 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. 36. 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. 37. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of 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. 38. 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. G:IPlanning\2006IPAOS-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 8 39. 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 up sizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 40. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control. 41. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of construction activities. 42. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conseryation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 43. 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. 44. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 45. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conseryation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 46. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conseryation 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. 47. 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. G:IPlanning\200S\PAOS-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm.Dev Plan\Planning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 9 Fire Prevention Bureau 48. 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 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 49. 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 (CFC 902.2.2.1). 50. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14). 51. 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 (CFC 902.2.2.4). G:IPlanning\2006\PAOS-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PC\MASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 10 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT G:\Planning\200S\PAOS-Q338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanninglPCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 11 Planning Department 52. All downspouts shall be internalized. 53. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. 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. A note on the plans stating that "Two landscape inspections are required: one inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for final planting inspection." c. A note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." d. One copy of the approved grading plan. e. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). f. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). g. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. h. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to yerify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two (2) hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to- head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. 54. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a 3' clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after- thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 55. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape to match the style of the building) subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 56. The handicapped ramp and railing shall be revised prior to issuance of building permits. The railing shall be architecturally compatible with the building and the material used for the retaining wall shall also be enhanced. G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 12 57. A detail of the trash enclosure door shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 58. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange: 59. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. Public Works Department 60. Improvement plans andlor precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of T emecula Standards for Old Town subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be obseryed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. d. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. e. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. 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. 61. 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 Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Fifth Street (Local Road Standards for Old Town - 60' R/W) to include installation of half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Improve 20' Alley (Local Road Standards - 20' R/W) to include dedication of full- width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections. 62. The Deyeloper shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: rolled curb and gutter, sidewalk and street lights. G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 13 b. Storm drain facilities. c. Sewer and domestic water systems. d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines. 63. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of 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. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 65. 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 Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 66. 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. 67. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementi'ng Chapter 15.08. Building and Safety Department 68. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 69. The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Upon the adoption of this ordinance on March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 70. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 71. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 72. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 14 73. Show all building setbacks. 74. Developments with Multi-tenant Buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. 75. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 76. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1 , 1998). 77. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 78. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 79. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No 94- 21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays 80. Obtain site plan to indicating all suite numbering in direct correlation with addressing and proposed buildings. 81. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of the California building Code Appendix 29. 82. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review. 83. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 84. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. 85. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Fire Prevention Bureau 86. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans directly 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 G:\Planning\200S\PAOS-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 15 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 (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1). 87. Prior to building permit, 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 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC sec 902). 88. Prior to issuance of building permit fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 89. Prior to issuance of building permit fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Community Services Department 90. The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication (Quimby) requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to .05 acres of park land, based upon the City's then current land evaluation. 91. The landscape construction drawings for the parkway along Old Town Front Street shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 92. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to install the landscaping along Old Town Front Street. 93. The developer shall proyide TCSD yerification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanninglPCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 16 PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanninglPCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 17 Planning Department 94. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 95. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 96. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 97. Each parking space reseryed for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 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 by telephoning (951) 696-3000." 98. 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 three square feet in size. 99. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 100. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Public Works Department 101. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for immediate implementation. G:IPlanning\2006IPA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 18 102. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 103. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 104. All public improvements, including traffic signals, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 105. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Fire Prevention Bureau 106. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 107. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters andlor numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 901.4.4). 108. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the name ofthe complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. 109. 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 (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9). 110. 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 monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10). G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 19 111. 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 (CFC 902.4). 112. 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 fire fighting personnel (CFC 902.4). 113. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Community Services Department 114. The parkway along Old Town Front Street shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services. G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlanning\PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 20 OUTSIDE AGENCIES G:IPlanning\2006\PA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\PiannlnglPCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 21 115. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated December 12, 2006, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 116. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated November 17, 2006, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be rnaintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Date Applicant's Signature Applicant's Printed Name G:\Planning\2006IPA06-0338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev PlanlPlannil191PCIMASTER COA-BY TIMING MECH 01.07 _2.doc 22 WARREN D. WILLIAMS ..ieficral Manager~ChiefEnginccr 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.788.9965 FAX www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us 111238_2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERV A nON DISTRICT December 12, 2006 City of Temecula . Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Christine Damko Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: PA06-0338 The District does not nonnally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated Cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are nonnally limited to items of .specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue: The entire boundary of the property is within the 100 year Zone A floodplain limits for Murrieta Creek as delineated on Panel No. 060742-00 I OB dated September 2, 1993 of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance Program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A District flood study in 1987 detennined the base flood elevation for the master plan flow rate of38,300 cfs to be 1007.36 (NGVD 29) at the location. The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers along with the District and the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta are working on the design of the Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation project (Project), which has been Congressionally authorized. The proposed development is located within Phase 2 of the Project, which is scheduled to begin construction in the near future pending Federally allocated funding. Questions regarding the Project may be addressed to Zully Smith of our office at 951.955.1299. Until the proposed Project has been constructed, all new buildings should be floodproofed by elevating the finished floor a minimum of 12 inches above the District's floodplain elevation of 1007.36. This project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta CreeklTemecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid prior to the issuance of grading pennits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual pennit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pennit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has detennined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. 111238_2 Mrs. Christine Damko City of Temecula Re: PA06-0338 -2- December 12, 2006 If this project involves a FEMA mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. The applicant shall show written proof of compliance with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for any drainage facilities the applicant proposes to be maintained by the District. All applicable CEQA and MSHCP documents and permits shall address the construction, operation and maintenance of all onsite and off site drainage facilities. Draft CEQA documents shall be forwarded to the District during the public review period. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain all applicable Federal, State and local regulatory permits. These regulatory permits include, but are not limited to: a Section 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a California State Department ofFish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement in compliance with the Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq., and a 401 Water Quality Certification or a Report of Waste Discharge Requirements in compliance with Section 40 I of the Clean Water Act or State Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, respectively, from the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicant shall also be responsible for complying with all mitigation measures as required under CEQA and all Federal, State, and local environmental rules and regulations. Very truly yours, ~4 ARTURO DIAZ Senior Civil Engineer c: Ron Parks, City ofTemecula Zully Smith, RCFC & WCD AM:blj @ Bancha Water Board of Directors Ben R. Drake President Stephen J. Corona Sr. Vice Pnsident Ralph H. Daily Lisa D. Herman John E. Hoagland Michael R. McMillan WiUiam E. Plummer Offioers; Brian J. Brady General MlUl8.ger Phillip L. Forbes Assistant General Manager f Chief Financial Officer E. P. "Bobw Lemons Director of Engineering Perry R. Louck Director of Planning Jeff D. Armstrong Controller KeUi E. Garda District Secretary C. Micbael Cowett Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel November 17,2006 Christine Damko, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY OLD TOWN PLAZA 1 A PORTION OF LOTS NO. 31 AND NO. 32 OF BLOCK 21, TOWN OF TEMECULA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN MAP BOOK 15, PAGE 726, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; APN 922-033-009 CITY PROJECT NO. PA06-0338 [MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING AND MINING) Dear Ms. Damko: 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 construction of any required on-site and/or off- site water facilities and the 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 that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD, If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 6~E... Development Engineering Manager. cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor 06\CW:atl02\FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road . PostOffioeBox9(}17. Temecula,Caliromia92589_9017 . (951)296-ti900. FAX(95l)296-6860 """"'" ~"~hnu'''''n~~'''; ATTACHMENT NO.4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING G:\Planning\2006IPA06-G338 Old Town Plaza One Comm Dev Plan\Planning\PC\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 9 Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: CEQA Action: Planning Application No. PA06-0338, Old Town Plaza One Building Rick Conroy representing C&R Architects, Inc. Southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Fifth Street within the Old Town Specific Plan Development Plan application for a proposed three-story commercial/office building totaling 29,409 square feet In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects) Christine Damko, Associate Planner Case Planner: Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Date of Hearing: June 20, 2007 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project atthe time of hearing. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at the City ofTemecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. G:IPlanning\2006\PA06'()338 Old Town Plaza One Conon Dev PlaoIPlanningIPC\NOPH-PC.FRM.doc ITEM #2 DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 20, 2007 Malt Peters Cheryl Kitzerow TITLE: Associate Planners Planning Application No. PA07-0154, a site plan Modification Application to change a building footprint, drive aisle, parking orientation, and landscaping of the approved Temecula Promenade Mall Expansion Plans (Planning Application No. PA06-0293) [8J Approve with Conditions o Deny o Continue for Redesign o Continue to: o Recommend Approval with Conditions o Recommend Denial o Categorically Exempt (Section) (Class) [8J Notice of Determination (Section) 15162 o Negative Declaration . D.Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR G:\Planning\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade MalllPlanning\PC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 1 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Kenneth Lee, Forest City Commercial Development Date of Cornpletion: May 16, 2007 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: June 20, 2007 General Plan Designation: Community Commercial Zoning Designation: Specific Plan #7, Temecula Regional Center Retail Commercial Core (PA 2) SitelSurrounding Land Use: Site: Existing Promenade Mall - parking lot North: South: East: West: Existing Commercial Uses Existing Commercial and Office Uses Existing Commercial and Residential Uses Existing Commercial Uses Lot Area: Parcels within Mall Loop Road - 78.06 acres Total Floor Area/Ratio: Existing - .36 Proposed - .40 Permitted - .25 - 1 .0 Lot Coverage: Buildings Only: Existing - 20% Proposed - 23% Maximum Permitted - 32% Existing - 20% Proposed - 27% Maximum Permitted - 50% Buildings and Structures Landscape Area/Coverage: Existing -18% (3% hardscape/15% softscape) Proposed - 20% (5% hardscape/15% softscape) Minimum Required -15% Parking Required/Provided (for entire Mall project bound by Loop Road): BACKGROUND SUMMARY Existing - 5,432 spaces Proposed - 5,416 spaces Required - 5,292 spaces On October 11, 1994 the City Council approved the T emeculg Regional Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263) and Environmental Impact Report No. 340 with associated Mitigation Measures. On December 17, 1996, the City Council approved the Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement. On September 26, 2006, the City Council approved a Development Agreement Amendment and Environmental Impact Report Addendum to extend the term of the Development Agreement an additional three years, to expire in January 2010, for subsequent G:\Planning\2007\PA07-<J154 Promenade MalllPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 2 construction of the final phase of retail commercial space and parking facilities within the Temecula Regional Center core commercial area. As part of the approval of the First Amendment, the City Council found that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on the Addendum to approve the proposed extension to the Development Agreement and the construction of the Final Phase of the Specific Plan. On October 3, 2006, Forest City Development submitted Planning Application No. PA06-0293. Staff met with the applicant on October 16, 2006, October 30, 2006 and on November 7, 2006 to discuss design issues with the Development Review Committee. A Planning Commission subcommittee (Planning Commissioners Chiniaeff and Guerriero) also met with the applicant on October 30, 2006. On January 9, 2007, staff and the project applicant met with the owners of Bel Villaggio, Power Center 1 ("Temecula Commons") and Power Center 2 to discuss the project. Several meetings with the owners of the adjacent Bel Villaggio development and the project applicant were held between January and February to discuss concerns over site design and impacts to Bel Villaggio. In addition, City Council and Planning Commission members toured the recently opened Otay Ranch Town Center with the project applicant to visit a similarly designed facility. The Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-0293 on February 21,2007 On May 16, 2007, Forest City Development submitted a Modification Application to change a building footprint, drive aisle, parking orientation, and landscaping of the approved Temecula Promenade Mall Expansion Plans. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns'have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Site Plan Modification The proposed site plan change will accommodate a prospective tenant's request for a more rectangular building and additional square footage, as well as the applicants desire to provide valet parking near the entrance to Main Street. The footprint for Building I to the east of the Edwards Cinemas was the building impacted by this change. The square footage was increased 769 square feet. In turn, the remaining buildings on Main Street were reduced in order not to exceed 125,950 square feet of retail and restaurant space as allowed by Planning Application No. PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans. The change to this building footprint would have created an unsafe intersection (lack of visibility/vision triangle) to the south of the Edwards Cinemas where the drive aisle behind the cinemas meets the drive aisle extension of North General Kearney. Therefore, the drive aisle behind the cinemas was "swung our' in order for the intersection to meet halfway between the loop road and Building I. In addition, the drive aisle extension of General Kearney North was slightly re-aligned to avoid. the extension of Building I. Both drive aisle changes required slight modifications to parking landscape fingers and the loss of 29 parking sPllces. The parking field in front of the Red Robin Restaurant just south of Sears was reconfigured to allow for valet parking at the entrance to Main Street. Part of the parking field will create a situation for vehicles to be double-parked due to the need for a landscape island and traffic control along Main Street. The Planning Department has added a Condition of Approval that will require the valet parking to be cordoned off from the public during non-business hours to prevent the public from being double parked in the eight spaces that front along the entrance to Main Street. G:\Planningl2OO7IPA07-o154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 3 Parkinq and Landscapinq The expansion to the mall was over parked by 153 spaces. This modification will result in the loss of 29 spaces which still leaves the expansion over parked by 124 spaces. The cumulative changes to the landscaping islands were minimal and the site still meets the 15% minimum landscape coverage requirement. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of public hearing was published in the Californian on June 9, 2007 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius. Via telephone and e-mail, the applicant contacted representatives from Bel Villaggio, Temecula Commons (Power Center I), and Power Center II regarding the modifications to the site plan. None of the parties had any objections or concerns. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The application for the proposed Modification Application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. This review included the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263, approved by the City Council as EIR No. 340 on October 11, 1994, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, the City Council's approval of the Addendum to the FEIR on September 26, 2006, and the subsequent environmental reviews of development plans for the Mall following approval of the Development Agreement. Based on that review, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Modification Application does not require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist. The proposed Modification Application does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance which shows that the Modification Application will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FEIR and Addendum. The Development Agreement provides that the Developer has vested rights to proceed with the proposed expansion of the Mall and the parking structures. All potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Modification Application are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR, and the Addendum approved as part of the extension of the Development Agreement. Any impacts concerning aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public seryices, recreation, transportationltraffic, utilities and seryice systems, were all studied as part of the FEIR and Addendum. The prior approvals of the Development Agreement and the extension of the term of the Development Agreement by the First Amendment to the Development Agreement establish that the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR and the terms of the Development Agreement will reduce those impacts to a level that is less than significant. Planning Application Nos. PA06-0293 and PA07-0154 are the vehicles by which the City confirms that the standards and requirements established in the Development Agreement for the Developer's vested right to construct the expansion of the Mall and the G:\Planning\2007\PA07-G154 Promenade Mall\Planning\PC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 4 parking structures have been properly implemented and does not provide for any new structures or uses not fully contemplated and addressed in the Development Agreement. Therefore, a Notice of Determination pursuant to Section15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the Modification Application, and no additional environmental documentation is required. Although not required as part of the CEQA review, the Staff reviewed a Supplemental Traffic Analysis for the Promenade Mall Expansion, prepared by RBF Consulting which determined that, "cumulative trip generation estimated for the approved Promenade MalllPower Center I and II, Costco, Bel VillaggiolOverland Corporate Center, and proposed Promenade Mall Expansion project falls within the Specific Plan total included in the original EIR Traffic Study previously approved by the City." The analysis concluded that "the Promenade Mall Expansion project, as currently proposed, is consistent with the original Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan EIR Traffic Study." In addition to the mitigation measures incorporated into the project by the FEIR, the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with the County of Riverside, dated as of May 2005, in which the County has agreed to require development in the 1-215 Area to become part of a fully and funded Community Facilities District for the construction of various roadways designed to reduce the traffic on Winchester Road. CONCLUSIONIRECOMMENDA TION Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan and conforms to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, the Development Agreement, and the applicable provisions of the Development Code. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approYing the proposed Modification Application subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code) 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula, Specific Plan No. 263, the Deyelopment Agreement, and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City, As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan and the Retail Core designation in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed uses, including retail, professional office, and service-oriented businesses, as typical uses in the Community Commercial designation. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan require that proposed buildings be compatible with existing buildings. The proposed commercial uses are compatible with the surrounding commercial buildings currently located adjacent to the proposed site. Additionally, the Development Agreement establishes that the Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed additional structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development Agreement. G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade Mall\Planning\PC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 5 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, the Development Agreement establishes that the Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed additional structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development Agreement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 7 2. Plan Reductions, Planning Application No. PA06-0293 Promenade Mall Expansion Site Plan - Blue Page 7 3. Plan Reductions, Planning Application No. PA07-0154 Modification Application - Blue Page 9 4. PC Resolution 07-_ - Blue Page 10 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval 5. Initial Study - Blue Page 11 6. EIR Addendum - Blue Page 12 7. Conformed Copy of Notice of Determination for EIR Addendum - Blue Page 13 8 Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 14 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-G154 Promenade MalllPlanning\PC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO.1 VICINITY MAP G:\Planning\2007\PA07-G154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 7 , 1'//1/ ~/! 2 J t~~..ro. ,;1/ I~\t- ' j I!tiiJL ~v>;:J W,..;:1;'1/ / ~ /, !::'" ff L;m! ;~01i~fE-illl-'-<" , ~ '. .10 / I' ~/i/I / ,</' iN \ ./~ '. If /1 '!H...~'rv '. "'. "". f -"'~ ',., '. -. '--'1" / JIm 'if, , #'1# U'0mIl, , k*,,! " &0/ ", /. 01" ~ /(I/'~~\~. '\~v'/ .} '. IF' i/~.....; flf/t".,!.f.,. "1;11/1/'// '~" /1$4,/ '/ / f/ ' ',,'0 -" " , 'I 9 " "I 1/" '~~{ \', . !-Cjt~~'~ *' " "" N-I , , /, 'i \~,~ ~~~\"''''''''~~r<.. > (L]7:~' \IV /"-!. /' ", ,'-J. "".'-.;'" iZ..:,,~~, " / . '. {>i ' "", " l-~ /-:d'~'y; """".., I , y," "' M:i '" ' .~ '""",~ ""'lW-. , ''''''-> "" . if \\Y'~\IW.. '0;:/ I" , Y/N'''cf'''q, / I \1.,. .. \ Ip.,\....' ~'V"';-ViX"~" I\-~_ \ <,,~ i.1::l' r:~ ' ,I \\J, '%', a '" "4H:~, , '!l "~ ", " >\.~ / l.r~~...~", f}~]9fi',,, ~\"'...161. '~'0 'i' / III'~ ~ ~::;J"", .Ii/j~ ~ ~ \\\, "'~~~ ""7tTj '''~( ~ Q~\~ ~\F.. "1 ~~ II "',- · 11\ V ~<il ;\ " C' \;1 !~.f I () 1\\WiIk ~ \~ n \. /""" 'I)~..~ ~~\dJl ' ,/ 0 CI[l1I~",<J; , I"",", , '" ' , " I , '" w- I( ~ /1 1'; )1 f}C ~.\'u.> !/~ ~ K/"''''. .I..~ b\Lf;; ~ ~ /' S)f::;iC4 ( l,l.:::1.' '\. Ik ,~~~&~ \\ ,I.. ~m 1i31;:::v'.J$ii' JJl"?< Gf 0. ~., '. / v----'l'1\ ~\~ W r' II 7".R \ L, , ~"" :P "'7. ~. , ' -, '- ,I" -,T u; "" ~, y~""'''''~\. z: L "'~ D= w-- \ I~ _ TTT\ ~ \ \ \'V~:H=" b'iiffi ~ \~~ \ ~ t:\@, ( \"., \" ~ \ 1 )~~ 'g, \ % .// \~::P, = r!;91'1 ' / , , "~ \ -~ , , '-~ \ ~N ' v :( ''"_':oJ \,~~. ,.. ,- ',,,,,-" ~' '. o 260 520 , -- , \ \\ \ / !t~-& ." .. ...--- --- " \ , '\., " j} ':~~ , I I , V i\:> ~; ~ ~ \ , "\ '\ " \ , \ \ ""'\ '., ..~ ~'k ~" y\ /: \, [~~ I 'v".\c '. .... 0.~ \ \ \ \~' \ 7J :::: "- , '\ ATTACHMENT NO.2 PLAN REDUCTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO, PA06-0293, PROMENADE MALL EXPANSION SITE PLAN) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q154 Promenade Mall\Planning\PC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 8 J j j 11111 ~<l<1<l<J<l . . ".. "~ B ."l:! ~..", r ':'". "h ~ ~... "::J~ ii~5 ! ~'i.~~; ! Lg~~ h5"i9~ oi."" i ! -J!i f'l ~ IJ... ~I ~ilj! I~~~ h""b, bd;; S:lll~.1l~:alll " ~. g'" 1 ~;:S8;;: l i'~~~ ! ~~':i ;; " ~ l'!_ ;t ~!i~~ ~ ~di'&! 1~'l.i Ee ~. - ~-i g ,.1 i<. I'. .' ~ ,.. h !~~!l!g~_ L !~I rn I 'U)-q ~~ ~ :l~ S!~:5 ~ d ~ r~~~ i m II 1,,1 ~lli 'U, h .'1. ;!U :Uli lilU 'I" I ~ '. I ~~ .,~;;::--~ il' I Ij ~~ I 71~~~,,;~, '" G liU"li! I z' I i J 7....... 1Vr~~,,-- ""'J. , .~, L -_.1_, J ../, ~,~.."-- I ~-~-~ --~J_ I I "~,-" ", ,> ~ T-,--,-,.,,_ ~ i/JJ ;I)~.." ........~" 0", 1 I ' " , " " h. -Z~ , " _ " '>" '.,,, 1-11!'r/'I"'_J_~~ r/;;,-;:, ~)i>"~'''?j;_, JJ.! 1 f f 'I', 1 rT__~7,#!,7" . ~'. '-, ! iii!:f "'ii!fYo,d 1 . ~~. %, ~ ;~J-l! fill II! / I J!!f:rr !~! 1 _ J~.""..\.._/( . "T -L!! I 1-- ,. 1.-/ I..{ I 1>1 (J ,1..1 J .L / '< e . . ' /1 T.,..-L.J..J..L_Ll_.1.J,_,"!~ ~ _------', ~l! .. . hi ILJ.117. '~-'--------il([f Z . /A'\\ 1 I I f -'----- ' 'i'll v' 11'1 .; . I.. ~ ' I I . <! , ILl ~" _ \) . . Jt1~ 1 " ~_"\ , , '1' . <> ~ \ , I ~_ . ..\ ' '-, ' " \>:\' '- '-, ,'-- . .4:iJ .. -." Q 'c'-;,.' fI~'r ,\ . . : " '~((- ., Oy.... . (\\ i \ ~ .' <" i 1 \ F.:II::10:" '~'j _-o~, ""'J t". z_1 /, . Lj/:-.f . ~ .1'" '-.., Jt1. 1 i,'~it" ~h ~. ,J WJjjl MaW:n~'f ATTACHMENT NO.3 PLAN REDUCTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA07-0154, MODIFICATION APPLICATION) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q154 Promenade Mal~PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 9 J III/I i ,. i " I .u. ~~ o~ I w~: ~~ ~ ! ~~ ~!1 ~!~ ~~ ! ;I~li h~ h ,i I U~~ I h' ; ,;., lii.i n j.JlJlJ Ill",,, I .h~ !.,ill! MlIl I~!h! !lMl Ii!. ~~ ~~ !~ rrnll iiii lillJ ~ a~ j~ o < ~ ~ ~ i ;~ii': ~~g , ~ ~ - > , - ~3~ .<" .- ~~s on . '~r- ~~ II ~ tJGI1:lII'!! '!P.~ r k, t~-1I! j!!} Ilf:! !!li ~.~~. !II! ..B.il ij,. JIIIII ~ IIIII oI<I<J<l<J<l ~ 'i , I Y~ti fl;: 11.~iUi I Hgj h;.~. , U; . i . . Ii I · " ~i · ~ I >ilu~ !I;:n; I!lm l, I li!l ldj~~ . . I ill I Ih,ll " h Iii i'l liu~~~ ~m ~ ~fH+t -~ = (lttl# ~ <C l- I- 0 o < z 0 >- w uz .z w n. \ \\::v (cy \::; \\\\ <0" ~ \\\\\1 ~ ~\\\ \ \ \. I ' \ . . \...- \, \ .. "l z \ ,\ 11111111 /?,y ~ ." ATTACHMENT NO.4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 07-_ G:\Planning\2007lPA07 -0154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07 .doc 10 PC RESOLUTION NO, 07- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA07-0154, A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION APPLICATION TO CHANGE A BUILDING FOOTPRINT, DRIVE AISLE, PARKING ORIENTATION, AND LANDSCAPING OF THE APPROVED TEMECULA PROMENADE MALL EXPANSION PLANS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0293) Section 1. Procedural Findinqs. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 11, 1994 the City Council approved the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263) and Enyironmentallmpact Report No. 340. B. The City, Forest City Deyelopment California, Inc., a California Corporation, and LGA-7, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, entered into a Development Agreement dated December 17, 1996 for the development of the Temecula Regional Center. The Deyelopment Agreement was recorded on December 30, 1996 as Document No. 488428 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. C. On September 26,2006 the City Council approved Ordinance No. 06-10 which approved the First Amendment to the Development Agreement extending the term of the Development Agreement to January 16, 2010. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement was recorded on October 11, 2006 as Document No. 06- 0748777 in the Official Records of the County of Riyerside pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq. Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership ("DeYeloper") is the successor in interest to the Owners rights in the Development Agreement. The Deyelopment Agreement approved on December 17, 1996, as amended by the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, approyed on September 26, 2006, shall be collectively referred to in this Resolution as the "Development Agreement." D. In adopting Ordinance No. 06-10, the City Council found that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on the Addendum to approve the proposed extension to the Development Agreement and the construction of the Final Phase of the Specific Plan ("Addendum"). A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk of Riyerside County as required by law on September 13, 2006. . E. On February 21, 2007 the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans. G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0154 Promenade MaIIIPlanninglPC Resolution Mall Major Mod.doc 1 F. On May 16, 2007, Forest City Deyelopment filed Planning Application No. PA07-0154, a Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. G. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. H. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and enyironmental review on June 20, 2007, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff, Developer and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. I. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approyed Planning Application No. PA07-0154, subject to and based upon the findings set forth in this Resolution. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution haye occurred. Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Deyelopment Plan (Section 17.05.01 O.F of the Temecula Municipal Code) A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula, Specific Plan No. 263, the Development Agreement, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City; As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan and the Retail Core designation in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed uses, including retail, professional office and service-oriented businesses, as typical uses in the Community Commercial designation. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan requires that proposed buildings be compatible with existing buildings. The proposed commercial uses are compatible with the surrounding commercial /;Juildings currently located adjacent to the proposed site. Additionally, the Development Agreement establishes that the Developer has a vested right to construct the proposed additional structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development Agreement. B. The oyerall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, the Development Agreement establishes that the Developer has a vested right to G:IPlanning\20071P A07 -0154 Promenade MalllPlanninglPC Resolution Mall Major Mod.doc 2 construct the proposed additional structures in accordance with the requirements of the Development Agreement. Section 3. EnYironmental Determinations. A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has considered the proposed Modification Application. The Planning Commission has also reyiewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263, approved by the Council as EIR No. 340 on October 11, 1994, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, the City Council's approval of the Addendum to the FEIR on September 26, 2006, and the subsequent environmental reviews of deyelopment plans for the Mall following approyal of the Development Agreement. Based on that review, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Modification Application does not require the preparation of a subsequent EnYironmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist. B. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Modification Application does not involye significant new effects, do not change the baseline enYironmental conditions, and do not represent new information of substantial importance which shows that the Modification Application will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FEIR and Addendum. The Deyelopment Agreement provides that the Developer has vested rights to proceed with the proposed expansion of the Mall and the parking structures. All potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Modification Application are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR and the Addendum approved as part of the extension of the Development Agreement. Any impacts concerning aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, were all studied as part of the FEIR and Addendum. The prior approvals of the Deyelopment Agreement and the extension of the term of the Development Agreement by the First Amendment to the Development Agreement based on the FEIR and Addendum establish that the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR and the terms of the Development Agreement will reduce those impacts to a level that is less than significant. Planning Application Nos. PA06-0293 and PA07-0154 are the vehicles by which the City confirms that the standards and requirements established in the Development Agreement for the DeYeloper's vested right to construct the expansion of the Mall and the parking structures have been properly implemented and does not provide for any new structures or uses not fully contemplated and addressed in the Development Agreement. Therefore, a Notice of Determination pursuant to Section15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the Modification Application, and no additional environmental documentation is required. G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade MalllPlanninglPC Resolution Mall Major Mod.doc 3 C. Although not required as part of the CEQA review, the Commission reyiewed a Supplemental Traffic Analysis for the Promenade Mall Expansion, prepared by RBF Consulting which determined ''that cumulative trip generation estimated for the approved Promenade MalVPower Center I and II, Costco, Bel VillaggiolOyerland Corporate Center, and proposed Promenade Mall Expansion project falls within the Specific Plan total included in the original EIR Traffic Study previously approved by the City." The analysis concluded that "the Promenade Mall Expansion project, as currently proposed, is consistent with the original Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan EIR Traffic Study". In addition to the mitigation measures incorporated into the project by the FEIR, the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with the County of Riverside, dated as of May 2005, in which the County has agreed to required development in the 1-215 Area to become part of a fully and funded Community Facilities District for the construction of various roadways designed to reduce the traffic on Winchester Road. D. The custodian of records for the Initial Study and FEIR for the Development Agreement and Specific Plan No. 263, the Addendum prepared in connection with the First Amendment to the Development Agreement extending the term of the Deyelopment Agreement, and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, is the Planning Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Section 4. Aooroyals. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby approves Planning Application No. PA07-0154 subject to the Conditions of Approyal set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0l54 Promenade MallIPlanninglPC Resolution Mall Major Mod.doc 4 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 20th day of June 2007. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 07- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of June 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade MallIPlanninglPC Resolution Mall Major Mod.doc 5 EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL G:\Planning\2007\P A07-0154 Promenade Mall\Planning\PC Resolution Mall Major Mod.doc 6 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA07-0154 Project Description: A site plan Modification Application to change a building footprint, drive aisle, parking orientation, and landscaping of the approved Temecula Promenade Mall Expansion Plans (PA06-0293) Assessor's Parcel Nos. 91 0-420-05 th ru -09 MSHCP Category: Not Applicable per Development Agreement DIF Category: Not Applicable per Development Agreement TUMF Category: Retail Commercial Development Mitigation Fee: $2.00/SF per Development Agreement Approval Date: June 20,2007 Expiration Date: June 20, 2010 (three years consistent with Development Agreement) WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. 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 Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) County administratiye fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Plarining 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)). G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglllRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS .G:\Planning\2007lPA07-Q154 Promenade MalllPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 2 Planning Department 2. All Conditions of Approval for P A06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans shall apply to this site Plan Modification Application. 3. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. 4. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 5. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 6. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula Regional Center EIR. 7. This approval shall be used within three years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 8. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 9. A Development Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission (as a current business item - no public hearing), shall be submitted for the architectural elevations of the retail and restaurant buildings, as well as the mall entrances (new and existing remodels), plazas and paseos, parking lot landscaping, and four-sided elevations of the parking structures before building permits are issued for the respective buildings. The development plan shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and conceptual elevations presented to the Planning Commission on February 21, 2007, and site plan Modification Application on June 20, 2007. 10. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive plan for fayade improvements and signage modifications to the existing mall buildingslsigns for the review and approval of the Planning Commission (as a current business item - no public hearing) to ensure the expansion is compatible with the existing center. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc . 3 11. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. II it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 12. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 13. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash bins utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. 14. Parking for the project shall be shared across the site, including parking spaces in all lots that are a part of the project. If the project involves multiple lots; the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a copy 01 a recorded Reciprocal Use Agreement, which provides for cross-lot access and parking across all lots. 15. The applicant shall provide 75 park and ride spaces on the upper level of the east parking garage. At the request 01 the developer, and approval by the City, these spaces may be relocated from time to time. The spaces shall be dedicated and striped prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 16. The valet parking field will be cordoned off during non-business hours to prevent the public from being double-parked in the eight spaces that front along the entrance to Main Street. Public Works Department 17. A Grading Permitfor precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 18. 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. 19. All improvement plans, grading plan 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. 20. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent post-construction Water quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent non-permitted runoff from discharging offsite or entering any storm drain system or receiving water. Building and Safety Department 21. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade MalllPlanning\DRAFT COAs PC Mall Maior Mod.doc . 4 22. The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subjectto the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. . 23. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 24. A receipt or clearance letter from the T emecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 25. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 26, Show all building setbacks. 27. Developments with multi-tenant buildings or shell buildings shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. 28. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 29. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1 , 1998) 30. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 31. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 32. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No 94-21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays 33. Prior to Submitting for Plan Review - Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. Site plan to indicate all suite numbering in direct correlation with addressing and proposed buildings. G:\Plannlng\2007lPA07-Q154 Promenade MalllPlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 5 34. At Plan Review Submittal- Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 35. At Plan Review Submittal- Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. 36. Prior to Beginning Construction - A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Fire Prevention Bureau 37. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 38. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-l. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 G PM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 hour duration. 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. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A). 39. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1, A combination of on-site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to 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 (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B). 40. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC 8704,2 and 902.2.2). Community Services Department 41. All Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans shall apply to this site Plan Modification Application. 42. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of . construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction and demolition debris. 43. All Trash Seryices areas shall include a trash enclosure for two bins dedicated to recycling or a separate compactor dedicated to recycling, in addition to the trash compactors. 44. The developer shall coordinate with the City's franchised hauler as to the specifics of the compactors. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade Mall\Planning\DRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 6 45. The Trash Seryice area for Building I, which does not have a trash compactor; shall have trash enclosure space to accommodate a minimum of four trash bins with at least one dedicated to recycling. 46. Recycling cans shall be located adjacent to public trash cans along the "Main Street" shopping area and within the parking structure. 47. As per municipal code, all trash compactors shall be seryiced a minimum of once per week and all refuse containers for restaurants shall be seryiced at least twice per week. 48. All landscaping, fencing and on site lighting shall be maintained by the business maintenance association. Police Department 49. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding all buildings and parking . structures are kept at a height of no more than three feet (3') or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the buildings or parking structures utilizing lower level windows. a. Applicant shall ensure all trees surrounding all building roof tops and parking structures be kept at a distance so as to deter roof accessibility by "would-be burglars." Trees also act as a natural ladder. Prune tree branches with at least a 6 feet clearance from the buildings and parking structures. b. Any berms should not exceed 3' in height. c. The placement of all landscaping should be in compliance with guidelines from Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). 50. Lighting: All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting Ordinance, California Govemment Code 8565. Furthermore, recommend all exterior lighting be in compliance with Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance 665 requiring low-pressure sodium lighting. a. Recommend all exterior doors have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above each door. The doors should be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle illumination at ground level, evenly dispersed. b. All exterior night lighting should be wall mount light fixtures to provide sufficient lighting during hours of darkness and to prevent problems on the premises. c. The Governors Order to address the power crisis became effective March 18,2001. his bill calls for a substantial reduction from businesses to cut usage during non- business hours. The order, in part, states: "All California retail establishments, including but not limited to shopping centers, auto malls and dealerships, shall substantially reduce maximum outdoor lighting capability during non-business hours except as necessary for the health and safety of the public, employees or property." d. "Failure to comply with this order following a warning by law enforcement officials shall be punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 in accordance with section 8565 of the California Government Code." G:\Planning\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade MalllPlannlng\DRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 7 51. Hardware: Recommend all doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware is commercial or institution grade. 52. Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings should be removed or painted over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Report all crimes to the Temecula Police 24-hour dispatch center (951) 696-HELP. 53. Alarm System: Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company, to notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi-tenant offices/suiteslbusinesses located within a specific building should have their own alarm system. This requirement is void if business is operated 2417. 54. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches should be painted "International Orange." 55. Public Telephones: Any public telephones located on the exterior of the buildings and parking structures should be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the buildings or parking structures. 56. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. 57. Crime Prevention: a. All retailing businesses shall contact the California Retailers Association for their booklet on the California Retail Theft Law at: California Retailers Association 1127- 11th Street, Suite 1030, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-1975. Penal Code 490.5 affords merchants the opportunity to recover their losses through a civil demand program. b. Business desiring a business security suryey of their location can contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Unit of the Temecula Police Department. c. Employee training regarding retail theft, credit card prevention, citizen's arrest procedures, personal safety, business security, shoplifting or any other related crime prevention training procedures is also available through the crime prevention unit. d. Any business that seryes or sell any type of alcoholic beverages will comply with all guidelines within the Business and Profession Codes and all other guidelines associated with the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. Contact the Temecula Police Department for inspections and training for both employees and owners. This includes special events held at business location where alcohol will be seryiced for a fee and the event is open to the general public. e. The Temecula Police Department affords all retailers the opportunity to participate in the "Inkless Ink Program." At a minimal cost of less than $40.00for inkless inkpads, retailers can take a thumbprint of every customer using a personal check to pay for seryices. A decal is also posted on the front entry of the business-advising customers of the "Inkless Ink prograrn in use". If the business becomes a victim of check fraud, the police department will be able to track the suspect with the thumbprint. G:\Planning\2007\PA07.Q154 Promenade MalllPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 8 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade MalllPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Maior Mod.doc 9 Planning Department 58. The construction plans shall indicate the installation of bicycle and motorcycle parking facilities consistent with Section 17.24.040 of the Development Code. 59. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 60. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 61. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at hislher sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeologicallcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." Public Works Department 62. A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Department of Public Works. The precise grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 63. 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. 64. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of 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. 65. A Geological Report sh.all 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. G:\Planning\2007\PAOH)154 Promenade MalllPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 10 66. 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. 67. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control. 68. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be available at the site throughout the duration of construction activities. 69. Eliminate the parking stalls next to the West Entrance of the West Parking Structure to provide an adequate stacking distance prior to exiting the structure. The design of the ingress access shall be one way in order to reduce traffic interference in the stalls adjacent to the exit. The design of the parking stalls and stacking distance shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. 70. The proposed location and design of the West Entrance on the East Parking Structure shall be as approved by the Director of Public Works. 71. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a, Planning Department b. Building and Safety Department c. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau d. Department of Public Works e. Community Seryices Department 72. 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. 73. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 74. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-o154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 11 Fire Prevention Bureau 75. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required (CFC 903.2). 76. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020). 77. 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 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 78. 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 (CFC 902.2.2.1). 79. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14). 80. 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 (CFC 902.2.2.4). 81. Prior to building construction, this development shall haye two (2) points of access, Yia all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1). G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade Mall\PlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 12 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-G154 Promenade MalllPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 13 Planning Department 82. A Development Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission(as a current business item), shall be submitted for the architectural elevations of the retail and restaurant buildings, as well as the mall entrances (new and existing remodels), and four- sided architecture for the parking structures before building permits are issued for the respective buildings. 83. Prior to issuance of building permits for the retail or restaurant buildings, Building Construction Plans shall include details for outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, lighting, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape to match the style of the building subject, as well as details of screening mechanisms for all loading and seryice areas, to the approval of the Planning Director. 84. Prior to issuance of building permits for the retail or restaurant buildings, details of the seryice drive aisle and service area at the west plaza/new Macy's entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director to ensure no pedestrianlseryice truck conflicts exist. 85. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 86. All downspouts shall be internalized. 87. Prior to issuance of building permits for the retail or restaurant buildings, three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. 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. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. c. Oliye Trees shall be planted within the outdoor plaza at the proposed 'new mall entrance' between Buildings A and B (in lieu of the palm trees illustrated on the conceptual plans). d, Provide an agronomic soils report with the construction landscape plans. e. One copy of the approved grading plan. f. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). g. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). h, A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. G:\Planningl2007\PA07-Q154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 14 i. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two (2) hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to- head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. j. Surface parking areas affected by this expansion shall meet the Specific Plan requirement of 50% shading of the parking areas by trees. 88. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a 3' clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after- thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 89. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange". 90. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. Public Works Department 91. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be obseryed: 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. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 400. 92. Provide a full access movement from Power Center One to the Promenade Ring Road. Details of the access road, parking stalls and relocation of the transformer shall be reviewed and approved prior to obtaining a building permit for the retail and restaurant portion of the project. 93. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be accepted by the City prior to the first building permit. The WQMP will be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and include site design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment mechanisms. 94. Evaluate all access points to the ring road for visibility conflicting movements and eliminate access points which adversely impact traffic flows. 95. The nine parking stalls that are on the east side of the East Parking garage shall be eliminated once a future parking structure expansion is warranted. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q154 Promenade MalllPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 15 96. Prior to a building permit for the retail & restaurant portion of the project the applicant must provide a design to realign the middle access road from Bel Villagio to the Main Street access road of the new expansion. 97, Prior to issuance of a building permit for buildings "A", "C" & "E" of the retail and restaurant portion of the project, a lot line adjustment between parcels 1 & 2 of Parcel Map 28530-1 shall be approved and recorded with the County Recorders Office. 98. 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. 99. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic device systems. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Sewer and domestic water systems. d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines. e. Minimum road widths of 22-ft. paved with 26-ftJ30-ft. right-of-ways or easements (shown on typical section). f. Knuckles are required at all 90 degree 'bends' in the road. g. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards (200-ft. minimum). h. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. i. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should be identified on the site plan). j, Parallel parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a minimum safe distance from intersections. k. Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to the seryice areas. If so, configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be reviewed and approved by TCSD, Fire Prevention Bureau and the Department of Public Works. I. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90 degrees). 100. 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 Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. G:\Planning\2007lPA07-Q154 Promenade Mall\PlannlnglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 16 101. The Developer shall pay to the Development Mitigation Fee in compliance with the Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement) and the Planning Application No. PA06-0197 (Development Agreement Amendment #1); the terms as identified in section (3) of item 6 of said Development Agreement. This fee is in lieu of the signal mitigation and development impact fees. 102. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Building and Safety Department 103, All Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. P A06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans shall apply to this site Plan Modification Application. Fire Prevention Bureau 104. The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans directly 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 (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 241-4.1). 105. Prior to building permit, 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 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC sec 902). 106. Prior to issuance of building permit fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 107. Prior to issuance of building permit fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau, 108. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland- vegetation interface (CFC Appendix II-A). 109. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones (CFC Appendix II-A). G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade Mall\Planning\DRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 17 110. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA -13, 24, 72 and 231-C. Community Services Department 111. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. G:\Planning\2007lPA07.Q154 Promenade MalllPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 18 PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q154 Promenade MalllPlannin9IDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 19 Planning Department 112. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the parking structures shall be substantially completed (at least one structure shall be operational). 113. Prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right- of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 114. Prior to certificate of occupancy, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 115. Prior to certificate of occupancy, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 116. Each parking space reseryed for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 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 by telephoning (951) 696-3000." 117. 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 three square feet in size. 118. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 119. The applicant shall provide 75 park and ride spaces on the upper level of the east parking garage. At the request of the developer, and approval by the City, these spaces may be relocated from time to time. The spaces shall be dedicated and striped prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 20 120. Prior to certificate of occupancy, security cameras, and other security measures, shall be installed an operational on parking structures and along Main Street. 121. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Public Works Department 122. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for immediate implementation. 123. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 124. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 125. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Fire Prevention Bureau 126. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 127. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters andlor numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 901.4.4); 128. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. 129. 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 (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9). G:lPlanning\2007\PA07.0154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Maior Mod.doc 21 130. 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 monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10). 131. 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 (CFC 902.4). 132. 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 fire fighting personnel (CFC 902.4). 133. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 134. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads (CFC Article 81). 135. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards (CFC Article 81). 136. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3). 137. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file fonnats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 138. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II,E). G:\Planning\2007\PA07.Q154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 22 139. If there are changes to underlying maps then prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline infonnation. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. 140. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above 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 Community Development Department approval. Date Applicant's Signature Applicant's Printed Name G:IPlanning\2007\PA07.Q154 Promenade MallIPlanninglDRAFT COAs PC Mall Major Mod.doc 23 ATTACHMENT NO.5 INITIAL STUDY G:\Planning\2007\PA07.Q154 Promenade MalllPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 11 i i INITIAL STUDY FOR TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PHASE Prepared for: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared by: Tom Dodson & Associates . \ 2150 North Arrowhead Avenue . San Bernardino, California 92405 August 2006 o Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION............................................................................... 1 II. PROJECT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................... 10 IV. DETERMINATION ..................................................................................................... 10 V. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST REFERENCES ............................................ 12 VI. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST & DISCUSSION ........................................... 14 1. Land Use & Planning ........................................................................................ 14 2. Public.Services......................................................................................;........... 16 3. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................ 19 4. Population & Housing ....................................................................................... 22 5. Transportation / Circulation............................................................................... 23 6. Water................................................................................................................. 26 7.. Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 28 8. Energy and Mineral Resources ........................................................................ 30 9. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 32 10. Recreation ................................................................:........................................ 33 11. Aesthetics.........................................................................................................~ 34 12. Geophysical ................:...............................................,..................................... 36 13. Hazards ............................................................................................................. 38 14. Noise .................................................................................................................. 40 15. Air Quality ..........................................................................................J............... 42 16. Mandatory Finding of Significance.................................................................... 43 1.7. Department of Fish and Game 'De Minimis' Impact Findings.......................... 45 1"8., Eariier Analyses ................................................................................................ 45 . . ATTACHMENTS . Attachment 1: Specific impacts that are unavoidable are listed on page which is reproduced as . Attachment 1 to this document . ( Temeaja AegionaI Center 'liutiaf Studyf083106 -ii- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location Figure 2 Site Location T emecula Regional Center IniUaJ StudylO83106 -iii- TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES CITY OF TEMECULA . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Initial Study I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency: Address: 3. Contact Person: Phone Number: 4. Project Location: Temecula Regional Center First Amendment to Development Agreement and Final Development Phase City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Don Hazen, Principal Planner City of T emecula (951) 694-6400 The proposed project is an amendment to extend a Development Agreement and the final phase of development within the 179 acre (excluding roads) Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263) in the City of T emecula bound by Winchester Road to the north, Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west within an unsectioned area of Township 7 South, Range 3 West San Bernardino Meridian on the USGS Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map (see Figures 1 and 2). . 5. Project Description Summary: A proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an additional three years to provide for the future development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the T emecula Regional Center Specific Plan. 6. Project Sponsor: Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P. II. PROJECT ASSESSMENT Background, Purpose, and Need . . The City of Temecula proposes to extend a Development Agreement (due to expire in January 2007) for a period of three years to expire on January 16, 2010, for subsequent construction of the final phase ofretail commercial space and parking facilities within the Temecula Regional Center core commercial area in an area currently existing as a paved parking lot. The proposed project would be developed within Planning Area 2 of the TemeculaRegional Center Specific Plan (SP 263) located primarily between the current Macy's department store and Edwards Cinema and also on . the north side of the Edwards Cinema within the current.core shopping area. The existing Regional Center currently has 2,117,545 square feet of existing and approved development. The approved Specific Plan for the T emecula Regional Center allows up to 2,483,000 square feet of development. The extension of the Development Agreement would continue the agreement with the City under TemecoJa Region<lI Center Initial Study/Q83106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY which the development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the Specific Plan would be implemented. In 1993 the City of Temecula certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the construction and occupancy of a new regional retail center, business and office center, and hotel and residential area, entitled the "lemecula Regional Center EIR". The EIR addressed the construction and operation of all allowed uses and intensities of uses for the proposed regional center. These land uses and intensities are listed in Table 1. The land use intensities adopted in the preferred alternative are somewhat less than would be allowed by the general land use guidelines based on the floor to area ratio given of Table 1 - Detailed Land Use Summary - of the Specific Plan. TABLE 1 Detailed land Use Summary Adopted Land Use Intensity Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 Land Use Floor Area Acres in Adopted Land Ratio Planning Use Intensity Area (Square Feet) Mixed Use .25-1 169.67 1 ,673,000 Retail, Commercial, Core/Support Retail Business Park/Office .40-1 5.49 810,000 Subtotal . 175.26 2,483,000 Roads 26.04 0 Project Total 201.30 2,483,000 TemocuIa Regional GenIe< lnitlaf StudyJ003106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY The T emecula Regional Center currently has the following existing and approved square footage of development (existing and approved development plans): Table 2 Approved, Existing and Proposed Development Specific Plan 263 - Temecula Regional Center Existing (Square Feet) Approved and/or under construction (Square Feet) Total Existing and/or approved (Square Feet) Mixed Use Retail, Commercial, Core/Support Retail, Business Park/Office 2,099,195 18,350 2,117,545 The current Development Agreement, adopted ,in December 1996, sets forth the obligations of the developer and the City required to be met in order for development of the Specific Plan to be developed consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. Under the proposed Development Agreement, the final phase of Specific Plan implementation would occur, allowing for buildout of the Specific Plan. The additional square footage of retail space would be developed as part of the Temecula Regional Center, consistent with the approved Specific Plan in the same manner required by the current Development Agreement. The proposed Development Agreement outlines the responsibilities of the developer, Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., and the City to complete the Specific Plan process. Project Location The proposed project is located within the 179 acres (excluding roads) Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263) in the City of Temecula bound by Winchester Road to the north, Margarifa Road to the east, Overtand Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west. Construction Scenario Construction will consist of the final phase of developmenf and parking structures that would occur . at the T emecula Regional Center within the core retail area, central mall.The eXlj.ct schedule would depend upon market conditions and availability of materials. "Construction is envisioned as occurring between eariy 2007 and late 2009 and is estimated to encompass approximately one year to complete during this period. v During construction, detours and other traffic management methods would be employed as necessary within the constraints of the surrounding site as needed. No off-site traffic would be disturbed during construction. Temecuta Regional ~r Initial StudylO83106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula Temecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY Existing Surrounding Land Uses The land uses in the vicinity of the project are high-intensity urban uses. There is a mixture of commercial, office, and residential land uses consisting of multifamily residences, retail commercial areas, office and industrial development. The proposed project site is within the T emecula Regional Center, known locally as the 'Promenade Mall'. The Temecula Regional Center is completely disturbed, graded, and/or paved; Interstate 15, a primary north-south transportation corridor, is within one quarter mile of the site. Utility infrastructure (electricity, water, sewer, and natural gas) exists at the project site throughout the Specific Plan area. Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road and Overland Drive provide general access to the project vicinity. Other Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required The developer must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board for a construction NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit. This permit is granted automatically by submittal of an NOI to the State Board, but is enforced through a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies construction best management practices for the site. The San Diego Regional Board enforces the SWPPP. The project occurs within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area, however, it will not be subject to review by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority as it is would be built on a completely disturbed and paved site with no habitat value for biology resources covered under the MSHCP. No other permits have been identified for the development of this site. Procedural Considerations As previously stated, the City of T emecula certified and adopted an Environmental Impact Report for the T emecula Regional Center Specific Plan in 1993 which included construction and operation of a regional retail center, business and office uses and other mixed uses including residential and hotel development. The EIR evaluated the impact of the development of the uses listed in Table 1. The existing and approved developrnentlissociated with the Specific Plan is listed in TGible2. The first amendment to the Development Agreement and implementation of the final phase of development for ,the T emecula Regional Center may, therefore, be considered a second-tier project being implemented under the existing certified EIR. The City must determine whether the proposed project results in new significant impacts not evaluated in the certified EIR and must decide what the appropriate CEQA imvironmental detemiination is to make if it chooses to approve and implement this second-tier project. ' . . . . In this case, the Temecula Regional Center EIR describes the whole project in terms of objectives 'and facilities and evaluates the cumulative impact of implementing the total project over time with all its elements. Under this ,implementation of specific project components can be reviewed in the context of the certified EIR findings. In this instance, the specific project being considered by.lhe City at this time is the extension of the approved Development Agreement for an additional three years and \X>nstructi6n of the final phase of the Temecula Mall as provided for in the Temecula Ternaaja Regional ~nter IritiaI Study1083106 TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY i Regional Center certified EIR. Where activities or facilities being implemented for this project fall within the scope of impacts identified in the certified EIR, the CEOA review process for this facility can be minimized through reliance on the certified EIR to detennine whether the potential impacts fr9m project implementation were sufficiently evaluated in the original EIR to fully address significant impacts. The Temecula Regional Center EIR provides a baseline and cumulative environmental evaluation and determination for all the activities required to support the construction and full development and occupancy of the Promenade Mall and the surrounding uses within the Specific Plan. The City can rely upon the certified EIR and review the proposed project for consistency with the project evaluated in the EIR, which allows 'tiering' of any future environmental review as provided in Sections 15152 and 15385 of the State CEOA Guidelines, if subsequent environmental review is required (Section 15162, CEQA Guidelines). Existing conditions used to make impact forecasts in this Initial Study are not necessarily assumed to be the same as those in the EIR, as the project site for the final phase of development is now within the existing regional center. Analysis presented in .this Initial Study will use a combination of existing conditions used in the EIR and existing today, depending on the most appropriate baseline for a conservative analysis. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines states: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for thaf project unless that lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to fhe involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substanfial changes occur wifh respect to the circumsfances under which fhe project is undertaken which will require major revisions of tbe previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or . (3) New information of subsfantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at fhe time the previous ElF{ was- certified as complete or the Negative Declarafion was adopted, shows any of fhe following: ' (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; J , (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (e) Mifjgafion measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and wouldsubsfanfially reduce oneor more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the initigafion measure or alternatives; or TemecW Regional Center ,...... Study_'OG ' TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES _ City of Temecula' T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY (D) Mitigation measures or altematives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline fo adopt the mitigafion measure or altemative. Section 15163 requires a supplement to an EIR in the following circumstances: (a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if; (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require fhe preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to fhe project in the changed sifuation. The City of T emecula was the Lead Agency for the certified EIR. Thus, in this case the City, acting as the CEQA Lead Agency for development of Specific Plan 263 - T emecula Regional Center, can . rely upon the EIR certified in 1993. Detennining consistency with the certified EIR encompasses two tests. The first test entails a reevaluation of the plans for the implementation of the proposed project, as described in detail above, with all of the environmental issues addressed in the EIR. An analysis of each of the environmental issues is presented in this Initial Study which compares the proposed effects from constructing and operating the proposed project with the facts and findings of the EIR. To facilitate this process, the City hereby incorporates the certified EIR for the 'T emecula Regional Center' as part of this Initial Study. As is permitted by Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. The required summaries of the per;tinent data for all issues are provided in the Initial Study evaluation which follows. Copies of the EIR are available at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 The second test that may be used to determine whether a second-tier project falls within the scope of anoEIR is to detennine whether new circumstances or reassessment of previously identified impacts may result in new significant impacts. As the text in Sections 15162(a) indicates "no ,.subsequentEIR shall be prepared for that project unless that lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (Paraphrases of the State CEQA Guidelines follow). 1. Substantial changes in the project that may cause new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously.identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken and which may result in new significant environmental effects ,or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance shows the project will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed. (See specific project description). These tests will be applied to the proposed project and a determination made regarding the appropriate CEQAprocedure to implement for the proposed project. To comply with CEQA and the, CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study is being prepared to determine if environmental impacts of the T8rTl8Cl4a Regional Center IdtiaI Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY proposed project were encompassed by the impact analyses contained in the EIR prepared for the T emecula Regional Center. Based on the evaluation provided in this Initial Study, the City will make one of the following environmental detenninations to comply with CEOA for this project: . The proposed project's environmental effects were encompassed by the environmental evaluation in the EIR. No new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond those evaluated and mitigated in the EIR will result from implementing this project. No further environmental review or detennination is required. . The project and associated impacts fall within the scope of impacts identified for the entire Specific Plan. However, due to more detailed, project-specific infonnation not available at the time the EIR was prepared, impacts and mitigation not addressed in that document are identified in the Initial Study. Adequate measures, however, are provided in the Initial Study to mitigate potential impacts to a level of less than significant and a Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEOA determination. . The project requires some minor changes and/or additions to clarify impacts under current conditions but none of the current conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Under this circumstance, an Addendum to , a previously certified EIR can be prepared and adopted. .' The Initial Study identifies potential impacts that fall outside the impactforecast in theEIR and since such impact(s) cannot be mitigated below a less than signilicantlevel, a subsequent EIR must be prepared. ' The Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form follows. T amecuta Regional Center Initial Stu:fy1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City ofT emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY III. 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' or 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated', as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. land Use & Planning Water Aesthetics Public Services Biological Resources Geophysical Hazards UUlities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources Population & Housing Cultural Resources Noise Transportation/Circulation MandatoI)' Findings of Significance Recreation Air Quality IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there, will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measure described on an attached sheet has been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTis required. ' , ' L 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 eariier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuantto that eariier EIR, including reVisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project An Addendum will be adopted by the City as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination for this project. ' BY: Date: f~ ~-O C- 0/,rz.e cAn Title T emecuIa Regional Center Initial Study,\l83106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES' Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL fMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources the City cites in the parentheses following each question. A 'No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A 'No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). A 'No Impact' answer does not require a source listing if it is-clearly apparent by a reasonable person that the project does not affect a particular issue (e.g. the construction of infrastructure will not impact parking capacity). The source reference in the parentheses would be 'not applicable' or (N/A). . Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially S1gniflC8l'lt """'" c.., than Significant No ln1>ac1 Irtllact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Would the proposal: Insufficient parking capacity? (N/A) y 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational ' impacts. 'Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant; or if the Planning Department staff lacksinfonnation to make a finding of insignificance. If there ~re one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the detennination is made, an EIRis required. 3) 4) 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated' applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a 'Less than Significant Impact'. The Planning Department must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced) . 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative deClaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 18 at fheend of the checklist. 6) , A reference list of infonnation sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances) has been established. The source list is attached to the back of the checklist and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the impact assessment disclJssion. See sample question below. ' ' Issues (and Supporting Infonnatlon Sources): Polenllally """"""'" .."..,. ""'than Significant No """'" """" PotentIally SigniffCant Unless Mitigated Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1,7) TemeooSa Regional Center Initiaj Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of T emecula General Plan Update: a. Land Use Element b. Circulation Element c. Housing Element d. Open Space/Conservation Element e. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element f. Public Safety Element g. Air Quality Element h. Community Design Element i. Economic Development Element 2. T&B Planning Consultants, Specific PlanlEIR, Temecula Regional Center (Specific Plan 263), 1993/1994. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map: Murrieta, 7.5' Quadrangle' Soil Survey - Westem Riverside Area Califomia (1971) Congestion Management Plan (RCTC) Growth Management Plan (WRCOG) Other: South Coast Air Qualitv Manaoement District. ACEQA Air Quality Handbook@. 1993 Other. Southem California Association of Govemments 'Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide', 1997 ' 9. Other: California Energy Commission, 'Fuels', July 1999 ~ O.Other: Riverside Countv Flood Control District 'Supplement A to the Riverside Countv Drainiloe Area Manaoement Plans. and Attachment to Supplement A'. 1996 11. Other: San Dieoo Reoional Water Quality Control Board Water Qualitv Control Plan (Basin Plan) 1997. Other: Califomia Enerov Commission 'ELECTRICITY Report'. November 1997 Other: Development Agreement By And Between The City of Temecul;3., Forest City Development Califomia, Inc., A Califomia Corporation, And LGA-7, Inc., An Illinois Corporation, December 1996. Final EIR, Temecula General Plan Update, March 2005. First Arriendment to Development Agreement, By And Between The City of Temecula and Temecula Towne Associates, L.P., September 2006. 16. Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, T emecula Regional Center Traffic Study Update, January 1997. 17. Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, Temecula Regional Center Traffic Study Update, City Planning Questions Conceming Consistency With The Spec.ific Plan EIR Traffic Study Findings, May 1997. ' Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, CostcoRelocationTraffic Study, October 1999. Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, Consistency Letter for Planned Promenade Mall Expansion, May 2001. 20. Other: Resolution No. 93-57 of the City ofT emecula, certifying the EIR and approval of the mitigation monitoring plan for SP 263 by the City of T emecula, July 1993. Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY (Attached source list explains that 1 is the General Plan, and 7 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.) v. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST REFERENCES KEY INFORMATION SOURCES 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 12. 13. 14. ' Other: 15." Other: 18. 19. TemecuIa R8glonal Ceoter Initial Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY VI. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST & DISCUSSION A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. Issues (and SUpporting Infonnation Souroes): Potentially SigniflC&lt """'"' Potentially Significant . Unless Mitigated less than Significant No IlTllact Ifl1>act 1. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (la, 2,15) y b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdictions over the project? (1,2,5,6,8,10, 11) y c) Affect agricultural resources or operations? (1a, 1d, 2) y d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (1, 2, 14) e) Be compatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1,2, 14) y y Substantiation: The general impacts to land use and planning of the Temecula Regional Center, of which the proposed project is a component, are forecast on pages V-1 to V-11 and V-70 to V-76 and throughout the Temecula Regional Center EIR. Land use impacts, both direct and indirect, were identified as being less than significant, with one exception, from implementing the proposed regional center. The EIR concluded that the utilization of this site would result in the loss of approximately 201.3 acres of pasture crops and dryland grains and lands designated as 'Local Important fannland' and Prime Fannland. This was identified as an unavoidable, ,significant adverse land use impact of constructing and operating the Temecula Regional Center (TRC). 1 a. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed development agreement and implementation of the final phase ofthe approved specific plan for the Temecula , ,Regional Center would not conflict with the general plan designation or specific plan zoning. T~e final phase of development of the Temecula Regionai Center is part of the implementation of the approved specific plan for the site and General Plan designation for commercial development. The proposed " project would develop the final phase of the specific plan in accordance with policies contained in the specific plan and meet all other city requirements. "1 b. Imoacts Remain the Same orLess Than Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would be required to abide with the applicable environmental plans and policies of other agencies with regulatory authority over environmental resources. These agencies include the Air QualitY Management District, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the State Water Resources Control Board. These issues were addressed in the appropriate subctiapters of the ErR.' The project must also prepare and submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). TemecoIa Regional Cenlef' Initial Study1083106 TOM DODSON ,& ASSOCIATES, City ofT emecula Temecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY In general, all projects in western Riverside County are subject to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). However, the Temecula Regional Center site is completely disturbed, paved, or in the process of development and contains no resources protected under the MSHCP. ' The site is not within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission as it is not within the airport influence area of any airport. 1 c. Impacts Remain the Same or Less Than Characterized in the TRC EIR. Prior to development of the regional center, the site was used for dry-land farming and pasture and was considered prime fannland and local important farmland. Therefore, the EIR considered development of the site potentially " significant to agricultural resources. The site is now completely disturbed with most of the site paved for parking lots or covered with structures. As such, it is no longer considered valuable agricultural property or classified as important farm land by any local or state entity. Therefore, the development of the final phase of the Temecula Regional Center would not be considered significant to agriculture. 1 d. Impacts Remain the Same or Less Than Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is in the west-centraJ part of the City. Surrounding uses include varying densities of residential uses, commercial uses, industrial and office uses, and the 1-15 freeway. The proposed project is within the approved specific plan and would complete the implementation of the specific plan. The project would not divide an established community. It would implement part of the General Plan land use element and provide and opportunity for the City to collect more sales tax to support benefits for the community at large. The proposed project has no potential to cause a significant physical division in the existing community. 1 e. Impacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The"project site is within an 'area developed with amix of uses, including the regional shopping facilities and high density residential uses and industrial uses. The development agreement and development proposed would complete the implementation of land uses envisioned by the specific plan approved for the site. As a result, utilization of the site would be optimized and would support the existing and proposed land uses in the project area. Thus, it will not be incompatible with the existing land uses. The final phase of development of the Temecula Regional Center would bEi completed during operation of the remaining portions of the Regional Center and some disturbance of on-site traffic would occur. However, no long-tenn iand use incompatibility with surrounding uses would result from project implementation. Traffic impacts on the surrounding area during construction would be reduced through implementation of a traffic management plan approved by the City. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agrE;lement during which the final phase of , development will be implemented. Bas,ed on the analysis presented above, land use and planning issues, related specificalty to the proposed development agreement and buildout of the final phase of the T emecula Regional Center, remain consistent with the approved specific plan and will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation greater than those anticipated by the TRC Rnid EIA. All land use and planning issues are forecast to ~xperience less than signilicant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No land use mitigationis required for,this project. This finding is consistent with .the oota contained in the TRC Final EIR. TemecuIa _ Cents.- Initial 5tudy1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY Isstms (and Supporting Iryforma!ion Sources); Poteotially Significant In,,,,,, Potentially Signlficant Unless Mitigated Leos "an Significant No lf1llact IfTllact 2. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1,2,14,15) y b) Police protection? (1,2,14,15) y c) Schools? (1,14) y d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (1,2,14,15) y e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,2,14,15) y f) Other govemmental services? (1,14) y Substantiation: , The general impacts related to public services from development of the project as part of implementation of the General Plan are forecast on pages V-93 through V-151 of the certified Temecula Regional Center EIR (TRC EIR). The analysis of the regional center, including the proposed final development phase, concluded that the project would not result in significant adverselmpacts,to any public services. However, the cumulative impacts would be significant. The City of T emecula provides certain public services to the City's residents that ,are an essential component of the area's transilion to a modem urban/suburban community. The services provided by or contracted by the City include: fire protection, law enforcement services (police protection), recreation, and library services. Other services are provided by special districts, or private service entities. These include: school,S and medical services. Many of these services are self-supporting, Le., users of the service pay a direct fee to a , commercial operator. Others are funded collectively by the community residents through taxes or payment of Development Impact Fees. 2a. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site is served by the Riverside County Fire Department and Califomia Department of Forestry on a contract basis with the\ City. 'Five fire stations serve the T emecula area and are staffed by both paid and volunteer personnel. ' The closest station to respond to emergencies at the project sile is the station located at 27415 Enterprise Circle West with back-up from the station at 28330 Mercedes Street. These stations are within a five minute response time of the project sile. This project sile has been generally included in the City Fire Protection MastEn Plan's, facility improvements and staffing increases for Temecula. It is not expected that any new physlcalfacilities for fire protection will be required to serve the project: The project site is not within a Wildland Fire Protection Area, Le., an identified special hazard area that requires additional services be available from 'the California Department of Forestry. Mitigation was required to address emergency management plans for the Temecula Regional Center in the EIR. These resulted in a less than signifICant impact in this area. T emecuIa Regional Center IritlaI Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY The proposed extension of time and completion of the final phase of the mall is not forecast to cause significant adverse impacts to fire protection services and no additional mitigation is required beyond the standard City code and design requirements. 2b. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would be required to meet the City of Temecula General Plan policies and design standards that optimize safety. The proposed project would incorporate these elements. The site design will be examined by the City to ensure compliance with City circulation policies in the specific plan. Measures included to mitigate traffic impacts in the EIR, would also improve safety and may decrease demand for police services in response to local traffic accidents. The City contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for police services. The Sheriff's Department has a Southwest Station located at 30755-A Auld Road near the French Valley Airport. A store-front station is located within the T emecula Regional Center at the Promenade Mall. The project site also has other law enforcement services available from the California Highway Patrol. The Califomia Highway Patrol has jurisdiction along the Interstate 15 freeway. ' Mitigation was identified in the EIR to reduce impacts in this area. The proposed project is not forecast to cause significant adverse impacts to police services and no additional mitigation is required for this ' project. ' 2c. Impacts Remain the Same or less than Characterized in the TRC EIR. The Temecula Unified School District provides public elementary, junior high and high school education for the area surrol!nding the project area. The proposed project would create no demand for school capacity as the proposed development would be retail commercial development. No housing is proposed as part of the final phase of development. No school facilities would be displaced. No mitigation would b9 required and no adverse impact to school facilities is forecast to result from implementing the proposed project. 2d. Impacts Remain the Same or less than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. There are no existing parks close to the project site. Extensive regional park and recreation facilities are located within the area. These include Lake Elsinore, Lake Perris and Lake Skinner, the latter being the closest. These facilities offer camping, fishing, biking, picnicking, swimming and other related outdoor recreation activities. Additional open space recreation activities are located on the Santa Rosa Plateau at the nature park operated for hiking and educational purposes. The proposed project would not place any demand on existing local or regional park and recreation facilities as no housing is proposed as part of the, final phase of the specific plan implementation. It would also not displace any existing or known proposed recreational facilities. No mitigation is required. 2e. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR; The proposed project would result in the buildout of an approved specific plan. The City has funding sources in place to maintain roadways and allocates maintenance funds on an annual basis from its general fund. The proposed project would pay . for and/or provide public road improvements and maintenance of roadways through sales taxes generated and provisions of the development agreement. The project is .forecast to place a less than significant demand on the circulation system maintenance in,the City. 2f. Impacts Remain the Same or less than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Impacts to health services, libraries or other public services are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of implementing the proposed project. . No housing is proposed as part of the final phase of development for the specific plan. A comtnercial development does not result in an increase in population or demand for health services. Therefore, no impact on library operations has been identified such that additional mitigation is required. ' Telnl3CUla Regional Center Inltial StudylO83106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INitiAL STUDY No housing is proposed as part of the final phase of specific plan development. A commercial development does not result in an increase in population or demand for library services. Therefore, no impact on library operations has been identified such that additional mitigation is required. No other impacts to public services are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, public service issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. All public service issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No additional public service mitigation is required. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Si_ ln1>act Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated ,-",,1han Sign/flCarlt No ln1>act ....., 3. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantia/alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (1,2,14,15) b) Communication systems? ((1,2,14,15) c) 'Sewer or septic tanks? ((1,2,14,15) d) Solid waste and disposal? ((1,2,14,15) y Y y y e) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ((1,2,14,15) f) Stonn water drainage? ((1,2, 14, 15) y y Substantiation: The general impacts related to utilities from development of the project as part of implementation of the Temecula Regional Center SpeCific Plan are forecast on pages V-93 through V"151 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). The analYsis of the FEIR concluded that no significant adverse impacts would affect any utilities. However, cumulative impacts would remain significant. Standard conditions and a few mitigation measures were identified to address project specific potential adverse impacts that were .identified in the analysis. ' The proposed project may adversely impact utilities in one of two ways: first, during construction existing utility lines may be affected by construction and the lines relocated, either within the existing alignment or along another alignment; and second, over the IQng-tenn the project would utilize a particular utility service, such as power consumption for street lights, or may alter an existing utility function, such as the drainage system. This project will cause both of these effects and they are evaluated on a case-by-case basis below. The City of T emecula obtains utility services from a variety of providers, ranging from public utilities (electricity, natural gas and telephone) and public entities providing water and sewer service, to the City and Couniy which ~ TemectJa Regionaf Center . Initial StudyJtJ83106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY provide for flood control and solid waste disposal services. These utility services are similar to the public service systems because they have limited capacity which must be compared to the demand proposed by a new project. As in the case of some public services, most of the utility service systems are self-supporting, i.e., users of the service pay a direct fee to the operator, which commonly includes a fee or a portion of the fee available to expand the capacity of the utility service system. Thus, for the water and wastewater system, a connection fee provides the capital to fund future improvements and capacity expansion to meet future forecast demand. Other than the ongoing stonn water drainage management system, none of the utility systems, including solid waste collection and disposal, is funded collectively by the community residents through taxes or payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF). As discussed below, any disturbance and/or relocation of utility infrastructure would be coordinated with the appropriate utility. 3a. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. Southem California Edison (SCE) is the electricity provider for the proposed project area. Some demand for electricity would be created by the need to supply energy for the proposed buildout of commercial space in the approved specific plan. The project and associated energy needs are part of the impacts analyzed for the buildout scenario in the TRC EIR and General Plan EIA. The electricity demand for this final phase of the project would be considered less than significant. SCE has local distribution lines on site. Potential relocation of lines within the specific plan area is not forecast to cause any additional adverse impacts due to the disturbance related to the proposed project. Southern California Gas is the natural gas provider to the project site. Demand for natural gas would increase as a resuit of developing the final phase of specific plan buildout. Any natural gas infrastructure located within the project disturbance area would be protected and/or relocated during project implementation. Based on the overall energy circumstances affecting the proposed project, the energy resources are expected to be on line to serve the energy needs of the region, as already acknowledged by the local suppliers, SCE and The Gas Company. No significant energy impacts are forecast to result from implementing the proposed project. 3b. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. Communication systems including telephone, cable and high-speed internet lines, are available in the vicinity of the project area and would be used as part of project implementation. Any lines within the project disturbance area would remain in place, be removed and relocated outside the project area, or removed and placed at a depth that would protect them within the project area. In any case, the potential relocation is not forecast to cause any significant adverse impacts. ' '30. ' Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Demand for wastewater services would resuit from the proposed project. ,No septic systems would be used to serve this project. Sewer infrastructure is located within the project area and wastewater would be treated at Eastem Municipal Water District=s Temecula ValleyWalitewater Reclamation Facility. Any sewer or infrastructure within the project area would be protected or relocated during project implementation. No recycled water lines exist within or near the project area. Wastewater services impacts were analyzed in the FEIR. No significant changes to buildout wastewater demand would occur as a result of the proposed time extension of the development agreement and construction and operation of the final phase of specific plan. ' 3d. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized.!n the TRC EIA. The prop6sed project Will generate demand for solid waste service system capacity during construction and operation. The buildout impacts of the proposed project on solid waste services were analyzed within the TRC EIR and found to be less than significant applying standard cOnditions and With mitigation incorporated. Solid waste TemecuIa'Ragional Center Inftial StudylO83f06 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center IN mAL STUDY capacity in area landfills, particularly the EI Sobrante Landfill, has been expanded to provide adequate disposal capacity for cumulative demand. EI Sobrante has more than 20 years of capacity available and licensed at this time., Combined with the City=s mandatory source reduction and recycling program and policies and programs for promoting recycling and waste reduction, the proposed project is not forecast to cause a significant adverse impact to the waste disposal system. 3e. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The prpposed project would require water during general construction activities and during operation. Commercial development would require water for general operations, fire flows (if required), restaurant and other food service uses and landscaping in parking lots and other outside areas. The impacts of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan on water demand were analyzed in the EIA. Mitigation measures were recommended to reduce water impacts of the project such as complying with any requirements to install reclaimed/recycled water infrastructure if applicable and installing water saving fixtures and irrigation systems. With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts to water were considered less than significant. Water lines are available at the site and any relocation of water lines would be coordinated with RCWD. Recycled water may be made available as recycled water lines are extended to new areas near the project site. If available, it can be utilized within the project boundaries. 3f. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TAC EIA. Drainage improvements connecting the final phase of the specific plan to the master drainage plan on-site and to the existing region-wide flood controVstorm runoff drainage system would be constructed as part of the proposed project and as analyzed in the EIA. Please refer to a detailed discussion of this issue in Section 6, Water. The proposed project would comply with all 'Riverside County Conservation and Flood Control District regulations including provision for no net increase in incremental discharge volumes from the site and for water quality requirements. Note that since the project area being converted for the final phase is already paved, no increase in stonn water runoff will result from completing this phase of the project. Onsite runoff will be detained in accordance with Flood Control District requirements. The project would also have to meet the City requirements. The project will not increase the volume of flows downstream of the project and no significant project specific or cumulative significant adverse impact is forecast for the storm water drainage system if the project is implemented as proposed. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during Which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above utility issues related specifically to the proposed project and incorporation of mitigation in the EIR, there would be no potentially significant , adverse impacts from project implementation All utility issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EtA. ' TemecuIa Regional Center InfUaI Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily ofT emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY Issues (and SUpporting Infonnation SOUIC9S): Potentially Significant ,,,,,... Potentially Significanl Unless Mitigated '""than Signiticanl No lrfl)act I~ 4. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1,2, 14) y b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,14) y c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1,2, 14) y Substantiation: The general and indirect impacts related to population and housing is forecast on pages V-9 to V-11 and V- 152 to V-154 and throughout the certified T emecula Regional Center EIR. 4a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is the time extension of a development agreement and the subsequent completion of the final phase of specific plan development and will riot provide housing or lead to a significant increase in population or housing. This project has no potential to cause population growth that would exceed official regional or local population projections. The specific plan does allow for some residential uses, but these uses will not be implemented on the project site. Implementation of the proposed action will enhance the jobslhousing balance for the City by increasing the total square footage of development wifhin the specific plan area closer to the buildout square footage identified in Tables 1 and 2 in this document. However, the proposed development only includes retail commercial uses at this time. 4b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project does not provide housing. The sife,is within the current developed area in the City and surrounding community. It will , complete the construction of the specific plan previously approved and was included in the T emecula General Plan Update and General Plan EIR in addition to being analyzed in the TRC EIR. As such, the proposed project is considered to be consistent with the General Plan growth projections. No significant extension of utilities and services will be required as part of the project. Existing utilities located on site may be relocated as part of the project to accommodate thEi final phase of development. The needs of existing and projected population for retail commercial services as anticipated by the General Plan will be partially fulfilled by completing the final phase of ,the T emecula Regional Center. As it serves existing and planned needs, the proposed project has no possibility of inducing substantial growth within the City or project area in general. . ' 4c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. There are no residences within the proposed project site that would be demolished as part of the construction of the final phase of the specific plan. The project site is an existing shopping center with no residential uses. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of ' development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, population and housing issues . related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. All population and housing issues are forecast to experience less than significant Temecula Regional Center Initial StudyA>63106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES , Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY impacts if the development agreement time extension is approved and implemented. No population and housing mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRG Final EIR. Potentially Potentially less than "gnlfioant Significant Significant No Issot:ts (and Supporting Information Sources): ""'act Unless Mitigated ,,,,,act I""act 5. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Y (1,2,14) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. y sharp curves or dangerous intersections), ' incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1,2) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to Y nearby uses? (2) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? y (2) e) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting Y altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (1, 2, 14) f) Air or rail traffic impacts? (1, 2) y Substantiation: The general impacts related to transportation/circulation issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the Regional Center are forecast on pages V-93 through V-11? of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). Extensive mitigation measures were identified to reduce circulation , impacts. The analysis concluded that with mitigation incorporated, no potentially significant impacts would occur to the circulation system as.a resutt of the specifiC plan implementation. However, cumulative impacts to circulation would be potentially significant and could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Traffic impacts from buildout of the General Plan, which include the anticipated buildout of the Temecula Regional Center Specilic Plan, are also evaluated in the recent General Plan FEI8. Several intersections and freeway ramps are .forecast to operate at less than acceptable levels of service, even with all feasible mitigation incorporated as a result of General Plan implementation. The proposed project being considered in this Initial Study is a proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the,tenn of the Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an additional three years to provide for the future development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. 5a. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The City of Temecuia has identified the minimum level of service (LOS) as '0' for City intersections not adjacent to the interstate freeways and , LOS 'E' for intersections and ramps adjacent to freeways. As described above, the proposed project, TemecuIa Regional Center lnitiat Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City ofT emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY will generate traffic. However, the traffic generated by the final phase of Specific Plan development was anticipated by the TRC EIR and mitigation measures were included in the EIR to reduce traffic impacts to less than significant levels. However, the TRC EIR also identifies potentially significant cumulative impacts to the city circulation system due to general growth in the area that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The General Plan EIR also identifies cumulative impacts to circulation that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. No new or greater impacts to circulation will result from project implementation that were not analyzed in the TRC EIR and recently validated in the General Plan EIA. 5b. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. New road improvements were proposed and implemented as part of the first phases of Regional Center development. Any design proposed for road improvements or parking facilities will meet the City's design standards that are deemed to be sufficient so as to create no traffic flow hazards. Based on the approved Specific Plan and ErR the proposed project is not forecast to pose significant hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists, or motor vehicles. 50. ,Impacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIA. During construction adequate emergency access and control must be accomplished by implementing a traffic management plan to ensure safe, albeit, slower traffic flow on the adjacent streets and within the Regional Center. The EIR does not analyze this issue area. However, the City requires a traffic management plan for all development as a standard condition. Therefore no mitigation is required to ensure this issue area remains less than significant because it will be applied to the final phase of development as a standard condition of approval. ' The Specific Plan and City design standards include features to ensure that hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections), incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists do not occur. Implementation of these standards is sufficient to ensure that emergency access constraints and hazards created by construction activities are controlled to a less than significant impact level. 5<1. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The existing specifiC plan and City of Temecula zoning ordimmce include requirements for adequate parking capacity. With buildout of the Specific Plan, parking capacity would be increased if necessary using one or more parking structure(s). Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to parking capacity as a result of this project. 5e. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The design of the proposed project would not be in conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation. Mitigation measures are included in the EIR to encourage altemative modes of transportation, including public transportation, as they have the potential to ease general traffic congestion in the area. 5!. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterizoo in the TRC EIA. The project does not affect any rail or water circulation systems 'as none exists in the project area. The project is not Iocatoo within the airport influence area of Frencl1 Valley Airport or any other airport. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implementoo. Based on the analysis presented above, and incorporation ,of mitigation measures in the EIR, transportation/circulation issues are not forecast to experience significant adverse . impacts from project implementation. All traffic flow issues related to the proposed project are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. , ./ Teffiecuta Regionai Center initial Study1083106 TOM DODSON &. AsSOCIATES Cily of T Bmecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY Issues (and SUppOOing JnfQml8tion Sources): Potentially Signiftcanl ',..",ct Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Leos""", Signlrrcant No ....."" "'- 6. WATER. Would Ihe proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1, 2, 14) y b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding and inundation? (1,2,14) y c) Discharge into surface waters, or in other , alteration of surface water quality, (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (1,2,14) y d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any waterbody? (1,2,14) y e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,2,14) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (1,2,14) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (1,2,14) h) Impacts to ground water quality? (1,2,14) y y y y Substantiation: The general impacts related to water issues from development of the,project as part of implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on ,pages V-26 to V-30, V-56 to V-58, and V-118 to V-123 o,fthe certified TRC Rnal EIR (FEIR). No significant adverse impacts to the area drainage system and water quality would result from . the proposed project implementation. However, cumulative impacts to regional flood facilities were considered potentially significant. Several mitigation measures were identified to address the project site hydrology and water quality impacts, including measures. to control future runoff and to install required, drainage system improvements for the project." ' 6a,d &e; Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Implementation of the Specific Plan was anticipated to result in changes to absorption rates and the amount of runoff from theprojectsiie. An engineering report (See Volume" of the SPIEIR), and drainage study were used to analyze impacts of . runoff from the implementation of llie Specific Plan in the certified EIR. The project site is presently developed with impervious surfaces, asphalt and concrete. Therefore, subsequent construction of the final phase of Specific Plan implementation would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces. The proposed project has been designed to accommodate the storm water flows and, these flows will be directed to on-site drainage facilities. The storm runoff will be discharged into the existing off-site . T emecula Regiooal Center Initial Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily ofT emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY system of man-made channels at a comparable volume to the existing volume of runoff. The flows will be delivered to the regional drainage system, which includes soft-bottom channels, such as Murrieta Creek, that facilitate water recharge into the ground water basins. With implementation of mitigation listed in the EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse changes in the local existing drainage pattern and absorption rates within the area. No additional mitigation beyond those measures already identified in the EIR is required. 6b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Based on a review of pertinent FEMA and FIRM maps for the project area, the proposed project is located partially within a 1 OO-year flood hazard zone and partially within the inundation area for the Lake Skinner Dam. Grading and drainage facilities on the site have reduced the flood plain impact to Jess than significant. Thus, the implementation of the final phase of the Specific Plan will not result in an exposure of new facilities to signifICant flood hazards. As described in the analysis of 6.a above, the proposed project will be required to convey storm water flows to regional drainage systems in a manner that would ensure that no significant flood hazards will ,occur downstream. Potential impacts for this issue would be less than significant based on the lack of existing flood hazard and the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Further, the project site is not subject to significant flood hazards from seiche, or tsunami. 6c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project encompasses activities that would typiCally generate some urban non-point source pollution. Paved roadways and parking lots generally accumulate urban non-point pollutants (particles, trash, oil, etc.) This project would discharge into the regional system that flows into Murrieta Creek and eventually the Santa Margarita River. Varying amounts of urban pollutants such particles and petroleum products (motor oil, antifreeze, etc.) could be introduced into downstream waters from the proposed roadways. However, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate discharges that would require pollution controls beyond those already required by the City and was forecast by the General Plan for this area improvement. The County and cities have adopted stringent best management practices designed to control discharge of pollution that could result in a significant adverse impact to surface water quality. The primary - document containing the guidelines for the County;s Municipal Stonnwater Management Program is titled: 'Riverside County Drainage Area Management Plan, Santa Ana and Santa Margarita Regions' (2005). Specific appendices define best management practices (BMPs) that when implemented, can ensure that neither significant erosion and sedimentation, nor other water quality degrading impacts will occur as a result of developing the project. Since BMPs are mandatory for the project to comply with established pollutant discharge requirements during both construction (Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan, SWPPP) and over the long-tllnn (Water Qualiiy Management Plan, WQMP), no additional mitigation is required to ensure this issue is appropriately addressed. Compliance will be ensured through fulfilling the requirements of the SWPPP and WQMP, which can be monitored by both the City and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 6f-h. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The projeCt is in an area where depth to ground \yater has been measured from 20 to 45 feet below the surface depending on seasonal precipitation and other factors. However, the potential to intercept ground water during grading and' ,construction is essentially zero. Any grading would associated with the proposed project would be less than 20 feet below the surface. The proposed project is not subject to the requirements of Senate Bills 221 and 610 because the final phase of development improvements do not have a water demanq,' , equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required for a 500 dwelling unit project (approximately 2Sg acre ft. per year). As discussed in response 6c, surface water quality impacts would be below a level of significancewith implementation of standard conditions. Therefore, ground water quality impacts would also be less than significant because the proposed project will not deliver significantly contaminated water to the ground T emecula Regional Center ImiaJ StudyI083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY water aquifer through percolation. The impacts to rate and direction of flow of ground water would also not experience a signnicant adverse impact because no pumping is proposed in association with the proposed project on the project site. No significant adverse impacts to ground water are forecast to occur as a result of implementing the proposed project. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which ihe final phase <if development will be implemented. Based On the analysis presented above, and implementation of the water mitigation measures in the EIR, water issues are not forecast to experience signnicant adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, water issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. All water issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts n the project is approved and implemented. New requirements for water quality protection have been imposed since this project was approved, but the City mandates that best management practices be imposed to control construction and long-term potential water quality degrading pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Because this is a mandatory requirement, no new mitigation needs to be imposed to achieve a less than significant impact on water quality issues. No new water mitigation measures are required for this roadway project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR. issues (and SUpporting Informallon Sources): PotentiaUy SignlTlcant "",..,. Potentially SignlflCallt Unless Mitigated ""'"".. Significant No ,..,,,,'" "",..,. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would fhe proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitais (including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (1,2,14,15) y b) Locally designated species and/or natural communities (e.g. heritage trees, oak forests, etc.)? (1,2,14,15)) y c) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pools)? (1,2.,14,15) y d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors, (including, but not limited to Murrieta Creek, Wann Springs Creek and Cole Creek)? ,(1,2,14,15) y Substantiation: The general impacts related to biological resources from development of the project as part of implementation of the T emecula Regional Center Specnic Plan are forecast on pagesV-77 thr9ugh V-83 ofthe certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). Several general mitigation measures were identnied to address the project site biology : resource impacts. The EIR concluded that no signnicant resources were present on the site and that no adverse impacts to the onsite biological resource Issues would result from the implementation of the SpecifIC T emecuta Regional Center Initial Study1063106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of Temecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY Plan. However, the incremental loss of biotic resources (non-native grassland/open space previously used for farming) would contribute to significant region-wide cumulative impacts to biological resources Two studies were conducted to evaluate biological resources on the Specific Plan site which includes the proposed project. The summaries of the studies and technical reports are included in the certified EIR for the TRC and are incorporated by reference into this analysis. Mitigation was included in the EIR to reduce the impacts associated with the development of the site to a less than significant level. The EIR concluded that with this mitigation, no significant, unavoidable impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of development of the site. However, cumulative impacts would remain significant. The proposed project would result in buildout of the Specific Plan as anticipated in the EIR at the same site location. No additional biological impacts would occur from project implementation than were analyzed in the TRC EIR. Because they are where the final phase will be developed has already been converted to urban uses, the proposed , project does not need to incorporate the mitigation measures listed in the EI R in the biological resources section. 7a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The vegetation on the site was categorized as introduced, or non-native, grassland and the site used as foraging habitat for raptors. However, the site is currently completely disturbed and/or developed with a major shopping center and other urban uses and paved for parking. No biological resources remain on-site with the exception of some landscaping that has extremely limited value for use by native wildlife. The proposed project would not disturb or destroy any biological resources. There is no blue-line stream on site and drainage on-site has been altered through the implementation , of earlier phases of the Specific Plan as anticipated by the TRC EIR. 7b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The EIR found no species of concern occurring within the proposed project or oaks or other plant species of concern within the project site. The Stephens Kangaroo Rat was found nearby, but not on the project sile. Raptors used the site for foraging, but the loss of foraging habitat at this particular sile alone was not considered a significant impact. The site is now completely disturbed and/or developed with a shopping center and associated uses. Development of the final phase of the Specific Plan will have a less than significant impact in this area. 7c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. No riparian habitat, vemal pools, wetlands, or jurisdictional waters were found on site. The sitewas used for dryland farming and was highly disturbed at the time of the EIR analysis. Since the sile is fully developed with urban uses, no potential exists to adversely impact any wetlands. , 7d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site is completely disturbed and developed for human use. It is also surrounded by other urban uses and isolated from habitat areas making it generally unsuitable as a wildlife movement corridor. The project site is not located within wildlife dispersal or migration/movement corridor and the lack of habitat resources indicate that the proposed project does not serve as a movement corridor. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the biology, ,mitigation measures in the EIR, biology resource ,issues are not forecast to experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, biology issues related specifically to the final phase of Specific Plan development will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project. implementation. All biology resource issues are forecast to experience less than . ' Temecula RegionalCenter Initial Study1063106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of Temecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY , significant impacts though cumulative impacts from area-wide development remain significant. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR. tssues (and Supporting ,",ormation Sources): PotentiaRy Significant In,,,... Potentia/ly Significant Unless Mitigated .....lhan SIgnificant No ........ ....act a. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2,14) y b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1, 2,14 ) y Substantiation: The general impacts related to energy resources issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the Temecula Regional Center are forecast on pages V-84 through V-a5 and V-133 through V-137 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). Several standard conditions were identified to address the project site energy impacts. The analysis of the project concluded that no significant adverse impacts to . energy resources would resutt from the proposed project implementation. However, cumulative impacts to energy resources from general area-wide growth were considered potentially significant. aa. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project would not conflict with any kno~ energy or non-renewable resource conservation plans. The proposed project is part of the implementation of an approved Specific Plan. Energy resources were identified in the EIR as being adequate to meet the needs for the Specific Plan buildout. Please refer to Section 3 of this Initial Study for a further discussion of energy suppliers in relation to the proposed project. 8b. Impacts That Were Not Characterized in the TRC EIR. The EtR did not specifically discuss mineral resources impacts of the Temecula Regional Center as the County had found mineral resources impacts to be less than significant in their previous Environmental Assessment for the City. However, 'the construction of the uses allowed by the Specific Plan would use energy and non-renewable , resources,such as concrete, steel and asphatt. However, the buildout of the final phase of the Specific Plan would have no greater impact than the buildout of the Specific Plan as a whole and would be included as contributing part of the impact of the whole project. The use of resources to complete a regional shopping center and provide services to the community as envisioned in the Specific Plan and General Plan would not be considered wasteful or inefficient. Therefore, the project would have a less , than significant impact in this area. ' The site is not located on any known significant mineral resource and is not known to have been mined in the past. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the" analysis presented above, energy and mineral resource , issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts .from project implementation. All energy and mineral resource issues are forecast to experience less thari significant impacts if the final phase of Specific Plan construction is approved and implemented. No energy or . T emecuIa Regional Cerner Initial' S~1083f06 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY mineral resource mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR. Issues (and SUpporting loformatiOfl Sources): POOtntially Signfflcanl ...... Potentially SignifICant Unless Mitigated .....lh'" SignlflC8fl1 No ...... l..-pact 9. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1,2,14) y b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1,2,14) , y c) Affect historical resources? (1,2,14) y d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1,2, 14) y e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within ,the potential impact area? (1,2,14) y Substantiation: The general impacts related to cultural resource issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-89 through V-92 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the project concluded that no significant adverse impacts to cultural resources would result from the TRC development Several mitigation measures were identified to address the project site cultural resource impacts. Archaeological and Paleontological Assessments were pertormed on the site as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EIR for the TRC. These studies are provided as part of the EIR, Volume III. 9a. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The paleontological assessment suggests that there is a probability that paleontologic resources exist on some portions of the site and that fossil remains and fossil sites could be adversely affected by activities necessary to implement the Specific Plan project. In order to reduce this impact to less than significant, mitigation measures (including monitoring) were included in the EIR to be implemented during ground disturbance. The site has since been disturbed and almost completely developed. Implementation of the final phase of construction on the site would not involve grading to a depth where paleontologic resources are likely to ' occur. However, application of the existing mitigation measures would ensure the impacts to paleontologic resources remain less than significant. 9b. 'Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The archaeological assessment concluded that no archaeological resources are likely to exist on the project site. A mitigation measure was included which requires thatshould in the event that any cultural resources are encountered during , grading or construction activities, work shallbe halted or diverted in the immediate area and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of resources and recommendations. It is unlikely that any cultural resources would be encountered during the final phase of Specific Plan buildout as the site has already been completely disturbed and graded in order to develop previous phases of the project. However, implementation of the included mitigation measure would ensure that impacts in this area remain less than significant. Temocula Regional Center Initial StudylU83106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY 9c. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. No significant historical resources were found on site prior to development. The site had been used as a farm and some remnants of structures were found on site but were not considered significant resources. No significant adverse historical impacts are forecast to result from implementing the proposed project within the Specific Plan site. The re are no known historical resources on the site and the site has already been completely disturbed and graded as part of the implementation of earlier phases of the Specific Plan. ,9d. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project site is not known to have any unique ethnic cuttural values. No significant or unique ethnic cultural values were identified during the paleontological or archaeological studies. Thus, no potential exists to cause adverse impacts to unique ethnic cultural values. ge. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. No significant ethnic, religious. or sacred resources are known to exist on site. The site is used primarily as a shopping mall with other accessory retail, restaurant and office uses. No adverse impact can occur from implementing the proposed project. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the cuttural resource mitigation measures in the EIR, cultural resource issues are not forecast to experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, cultural resource issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. All cultural resource issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No new cultural resource mitigation measures are required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Rnal EIR. issues (and SUpportlng Infonnatioo Souroes): . Potentially ..gnlficant .",..,. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated ......... SignifICant No ~ llTC'act 10. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? , (1,2,14) y b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1,2; 14) , y Substantiation: The general impacts related to recreation from development of the project as part of implementation of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan are forecast on pages V- 131 through V-312 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). Please refer to the discussion regarding parks and recreation In Section 2 of this document. The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase, concluded that no significant adverse impacts to recreational resources would result from the proposed project .implementation. 10a. Impacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterize<! in the TRG EIR. ,The proposed project is a commercial development and does not include housing. Therefore, no demand for recreation would be generated from project implementation. The Specific Plan does allow residential uses. However, these have not been developed within the Specific Plan area and are not being considered at this time. Therefore. the impacts of Specific Plan buildout in this issue area are less than what was Temecula Regional Center Initial Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily ofT emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY forecast at the time of Specific Plan EIR certification and approval. No demand for recreation or parks would result from the implementation of the proposed project. 10b. ImDacts Remain the Same or Less than as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The proposed project would not develop or impact any areas planned for recreational uses. The proposed project site is designated and zoned for commercial, office and related use. No adverse impact to any existing recreation opportunities are forecast to occur if the proposed project is implemented. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, recreation issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. Recreation issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIA. Issues (and Supporting lnfonnatlon Sources): Potentially Significant """"" Potentially SigniflCafll Unless Mitigated ""'- Significant No .."... ''',>act 11. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1,2,14) y b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1,2,14) Ii) Create light or glare? (1,2,14) y y Substantiation: The general impacts related to aesthetic issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-86 through V-88, V-148 through V- 149, and of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase, concluded that no significant adverse impacts to aesthetic values would result from the proposed project implementation. Several mitigation measures were identified to address the project site aesthetic impacts related to light and glare. 11 a. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is set in the west- central area of Temecula which has been characterized by rolling hills with views of surrounding hillsides and larger mountains in all directions. The area has become urbanized and is developed with a mix of uses but dominated by commercial uses. The proposed project is adjacent to Highway 79, which is designated a 'Eligible County Scenic Highway'. The EIR detennined that the project would have no significant adverse aesthetic impacts on this highway. " The proposed project, would not impact undeveloped hillsides and ridgelines would still be visible in the area after the projeCt site is developed. The site is adjacent to 1-15, but due to the level of development in the project area, the visual setting is not considered a significant scenic resource. Adverse aesthetic impacts to scenic resources from development of the, site would be less than significant with implementation of existing City Design Standards and Design Guidelines in the Specific Plan. These standards include design criteria that enhance the aesthetics of a project and require design and site layout that are compatible with .the surrounding area. The project will be required to meet JIle City public works standards and any roadway improvements would be improved to General Plan and Specific Plan specifications. T emecuIa Regional Center Initial S1UdylO83106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY 11 b. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would extend the timeline of a Development Agreement to provide for the development of the final phase of a Specific Plan. The final phase would complete the core area of an existing regional shopping mall. The surrounding area is dominated by commercial uses with some office, industrial, and residential uses. With implementation of General Plan and Specffic Plan development standards and design criteria the impacts of the proposed project would be consistent with the impacts analyzed in the certified EIR for the Specific Plan. Improvements would also be required to meet the city public works standards. Any negative effects to aesthetics would be less than significant. 11c. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The implementation of the final phase of the Specffic Plan would create limited light and glare that may adversely impact the surrounding area as lighting would be installed to enhance safety. These impacts would be reduced with implementation of the -night lighting standards as established by the General Plan and Specific Plan and that mandate that each project conform to Palomar Observatory lighting requirements as established in Riverside County Ordinance 655. With implementation of these mandatory design requirements for lighting and the mitigation measures included in the EIR, the proposed project will not cause significant night lighting impacts. Conclusion c The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the aesthetic mitigation measures in the EIR, aesthetic issues are not fore<:ast to experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, aesthetic issues related specifically to the proposed Development Agreement and final phase of Specific Plan development will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. All aesthetic issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No new aesthetic mitigation measures are required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR. . T emecula Regional Center Initial Stu::lyIU83106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Gily of T emecuJa T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY Issues (and SUpporting Information Sources): Potentially SlgniflCaf1t ""'act Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated les>lhon Significant No IrTllact ~ 12. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potentiat impacts involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (1, 2,14) y b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? (1, 2,14) y c) Seismicity: special study zone? (1,2, 14) y d) Landslides or mudslides? (1, 2,14) y e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill?(l, 2, 14) y f) Subsidence of the land? (1, 2, 14) g) Expansive soils? (1, 2, 14) y y h) Unique geologic or physical features? (1, 2, 14) y Substantiation: The general impacts related to geology and soil issues from development of the project as part of implementation ofthe Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-12 through V-24 of the certified TRG Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase of development, concluded that no significant adverse impacts to geology or soil resources would result from the Specific Plan implementation. ,Several mitigation measures were identified to address the project site geology and soil resource impacts. A geotechnical report of the site was prepared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EtR for the Specific Plan. This study is provided as part of the EIR, Volume III. 'The proposed project is located in a seismically active area as is all of southern Galifomia. The Elsinora fault and Murrieta Hot Springs fault are located within one mile of the project site. However, no active fault traces or faults have been found within the project site. It is estimated that an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 on the Richter scale could occur on the nearby Elsinore fault segment. Significant earthquakes have occurred on faults near the site. A total of 131 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater have occurred within 100 miles of tha site since 1932. \ " 12a. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The site is not located within a State of Galifomia Fault-Hazard Zone for active faulting and no active fault traces or faults have bean found on the projact site. Ground rupture normally occurs along pre-existing faults. As there are no active faults on the project site, the ground rupture potential is projected to be low ~o non-existent. , T emecula Regional Center Initial Stucfy1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily ofT emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY The City requires construction to meet its geotechnical design standards. The project structural engineer is required to design the project based on the site-specific soil and bedrock constraints and seismic hazards. Implementing the standards required by the City and the published geotechnical requirements would ensure that the potential impacts associated with fault rupture would be less than significant. Further, mitigation measures included in ttie EIR ensure that the final phase of Specific Plan will be constructed to meet City design standards. 12b. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The site is located in a seismically active area typical of southern Califomia and is likely to experience ground shaking due to earthquakes on nearby faults. The maximum credible earthquake for the Elsinore- T emecula tault zone is 7.0 on the Richter Scale. The City requires construction to meet City standards and the project structural engineer would design the project based on the site-specific soil and bedrock constraints identified in published geotechnical reports for the project site. Implementing the standards required by the City and published geotechnical reports would ensure that the potential impacts associated with ground shaking would be less than significant. See mitigation listed under 12a above. Sites with loose to medium dense soils in areas where ground water is within 40 feet of the surface are susceptible to liquefaction with strong ground shaking. There is potential for liquefaction in the northem part of the site as groundwater can beanly 20 feet below the surface and soils are susceptible to liquefaction. However, the impact'in this issue area would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation incorporated from the EIR and would be no greater than previously analyzed. 12c. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The nearest known special study zone and active fault is the Elsinore fault located within 0.4 mile ,west of the site. It is estimated that an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 on the Richter scale could occur on this nearby fault segment. Significant earthquakes have occurred on faults near the site. However, as the site is not within a special study zone, impacts to this area are considered less than significant. 12d. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The landslide risk within the area is low due to the existing topography and the general competence of the underlying geology. Additionally, the site is now completely graded and developed as with parking lots. The overall slope of the finished project would not create a significant potential for landslides or mudslides. Therefore the potential for landsliding and/or mudslides is considered less than significant. 12e. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The issue of erosion and sedimentation are discussed under issue 6c of this document. City grading standards, best management practices and the SWPPP and WQMP are required by mitigation to control the potential significant erosion hazards. The topography has been changed to accommodate development of earlier phases of Specific Plan implementation and has been graded to avoid erosion. Erosion of the onsite soils is a potential impact during excavation, grading, fill and compacting operations. HoWever, if grading does occur as part of the project implementation, compliance with City and County standards can ensure , that the potential for significant erosion will be controlled on the project site and be less than significant. In addition. because the area of impact is greater than one acre, the final phase of the Specific Plan must be developed meeting current water quality requirements, inCluding the filing of a Notice of Intent and implementation of aStonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan, (WQMP). Since this is a mandatory requirement, no additional mitigation is required to control potential water quality impacts to a less than significant impact level. 121. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The soils on the site are susceptible to settlement from intense ground shaking caused by seismic activity. However, implementation of TemeWa Regional Center Initial StldylO83106 TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES Glly of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY mitigation included in the EIR would reduce the level of significance in this issue area to less than significant. 12g. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project has soils with generally low expansion potential. Therefore, impacts of expansive soils would be less than significant. If expansive soils are found on site, the City would require soil preparation methods be used to ensure that impacts in this area remain less than significant. 12h. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The site has a rolling topography. However, this type of topography is typical of the area and no geologic features would be considered unique. Therefore, the impact to this issue area would be less than significant. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the referenced seismic safety and soil erosion mitigation measures in the EIR, geology and soil issues are not forecast to experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, geology and soil issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. All geology and soil issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts If the Development Agreement time extension and final development phase of the Specific Plan are approved and implemented. No new geology and soil mitigation measures are required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR. Issues (and SUpporting InfCKmation SoulatS): Potentially Significant """"" PotentiaJIy 51_ UnIeos _ ""'."""' SlgnlflC8f1t No """"" """"" 13. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (1, 2,14) y b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation , plan?(1, 2,14) y c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1, 2,14) y d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1, 2,14) y e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, ortrees? (1, 2,14) , y Substantiation: The general impacts related to hazard issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-59 through V- 62 and generally throughout the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including th~ final phase 01 development, implies that no significant ,adverse impacts to hazard issues would result from the proposed project. Several mitigation measures were T emecula Regional Coote< IritiaJ Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of Temecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY identified to address the project site hazard impacts. A Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation of the site was prepared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EIR for the TRC. 13a. Impacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIA. During construction there is a potential for accidental release of petroleum products in sufficient quantity to pose a significant hazard to people and the environment. The City requires compliance with Best Management Practices to manage clean-up of potential spills othazardous materials during construction. The City also requires all spills or leakage of petroleum and other products duringconstruction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and dispOSal of the contaminant released. The SWPPP would also contain sufficient measures to address accidental spills. ThOUgh the risk of accidents would not be eliminated, it would be controlled to a less than significant level by implementing the standard City policies. No additional mitigation is required to assure an accidental spill will not result in significant water quality impacts. 13b. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The project site would not interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. The City would require a traffic management plan to be implemented during construction that would ensure public safety and emergency access surrounding the site. Since the project is within a five-minute response time for fire protection and emergency response, the potential impact on emergency response and access is forecast to be less than significant. The project will be built to conform to all City police, fire and public works standards. 130. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. Building construction can be associated with some hazardous materials that, if misused or spilled, may cause a health hazard to those nearby. Hazardous materials can also be discovered during grading and/or other earthmoving activities. The City requires Best Management Practices be employed to minimize the risks associated with these unexpected events and the EIR also includes mitigation that would reduce the il'\lpacts of this issue to 'less than signfficant. As a result, handling and managing hazardous substances and equipment would result in be less than significant impacts from this issue. ,13d. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. Underground utilities are present on and near the site. However, the risk of these facilities posing a significant danger to the public is no more than occurs throughout the City or County where an extensive network of utilities serve each developed use. The utilities present are water distribution lines, sewer lines, electrical lines, natural gas lines, , cable facilities and potentially Verizon lines. Controlling construction activities as required in the following mitigation measure, the potential impact to the utility lines is considered less than significant. Also see Section 3 of this document. The Preliminary Environmental Properly Investigationfound no toxic hazards on site.' No other potential hazards are known to exist onsite. Therefore, a low probability exists that the site contains any hazardous materials. The nsk of exposure .of people to existing health hazards would be considered less than signfficant with the mitigation in the EIR incorporated. 13e. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EtA. The project site is not located within a Wildland Fire Protootion Agreement Area, i.e., an identnied special hazard area that requires additional services be available from the Calffomia Departmentof Forestry. During project construction, City procedures will be followed so that all risks of accidental fire are reduced to less than significant. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the referenced hazard mitigation measures in the EIR, hazard issues are not forecast to experience significant T emect.da Regional Center IMial StudylO83too TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INIllAL STUDY adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, hazard issues related specifically to the proposed project will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. All hazard issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No new hazard mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR. tssues (and SUpporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant ~ Potentially Significant Unless Mitioated less than Significant No ''''''''' ~ 14. NOISE. Would the proposal resultin: a) b) Increases in existing noise levels? (1, 2,14) y Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1,2,14) y , Substantiation: The general impacts related to noise issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-31throughV- 46 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase, concluded that significant adverse impacts to noise issues would , result from the proposed Specific Plan implementation due to cumulative noise impacts resulting primarily from increases in traffic in the area over time. Mitigation measures were identified to address long-term project noise impacts and standard conditions for controlling construction noise. A Noise Assessment was prepared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EIR for the TRC. This study is provided as part of the EIR, Volume III. 14a. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Construction of the proposed project , would increase noise levels in the area and is considered a short-term impact to ambient noise levels. Noise generated by equipment can reach high episodic levels, but these episodes are of relatively , short duration and typically restricted to day light hours. ' In order to control construction noise levels to a level consistent with the City Noise Element, the City would require noise reduction measures as conditions of approval for grading and building pennits. Some standard policies include limiting the hours of construction activity, and requiring a construction- related noise mitigation plan for projects adjacent to sensitive receptors. The EIR also identifies a mitigation measure to address construction noise and several to address construction techniques to reduce interior and exterior noise impacts. Given the location of the final phase within the Mall, the potential for significant noise impacts on sensitive receptors is considered very low. As construction noise impacts are of relatively short and temporary duration, incorporation of these mitigation measures would reduce construction, noise impacts to less than significant. The EIR concluded that cumulative noise levels in the area of the project are considered significant and adverse and cannot be'mitigated to a level of less than significant. The Specific Plan would contribute no signifICant stationary noise effects to off-site due to project implementation, but the noise levels in the surrounding area will continue to increase due to traffic. The noise increases are due to regional growth and location next to a majot north-south transportation corridor. The Specific Plan itself will contribute little and insignificantly to ultimate noise levels. ' No changes in cOliditions or the results of the analysis would occur as aresult of developing the final phase of the SpecificPlan analyzed in the TRC EIR. TemecWl RegiOnal Center InffiaJ StudylOB3lOG TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily ofT emecula T emecula Regional Center INmAL STUDY 14b. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. None of the activities associated with the proposed project, either during constrUction or during operation of the completed Specific Plan is forecast to generate severe noise levels. However, in order to ensure that exposure of people to severe noise levels is reduced to a less than significant level, implementation of the construction noise mitigation measure and standard city procedures is recommended. No routine aircraft overflights or airport operations Occur within the project area. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed in the EIR and compliance with the City of T emecula Municipal Code and policies, potential severe noise impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the referenced noise standard conditions and mitigation measures in the EIR, noise issues are not forecast to experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. There will be a significant and adverse cumulative noise impact due to regional growth. However the contribution of the Specific Plan, including its final phase of development is not considered significant or potentially significant. Based on the analysis presented above, noise issues related specifically to the implementation of the final phase of development of the TRC Specific Plan will not experience potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. Apart from area-wide cumulative impacts, all noise issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No new noise mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIA. Issues (and SupporUng information Souroes): PotentiaU)' S;gnlflcant "-" Potentially Significanl Unless Mitigated """..'" Significant No - "'- 15. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0,t1~ ' y b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1,2,14) y c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1,2,14) y d) Create objectionable odors? (1,2,14) y Substantiation: , The general impacts related to air quality issues from development of the project as part of implementation of the Specific Pian are forecast on pages V-47 through V-55 of the certified TRC Final EIR (FEIR). The analYsis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase of development for the Specific Plan, concluded that Air Quality impacts were potentially significant and would not be reduced to less than significant even with mitigation. Mitigation measures were identified to address short-term project bonstructioil air quality inipacts, but impacts were still considered significant. TemecUa Regional Center InitialSludylO83'06 , TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY 15a &b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is the time extension of the existing Development Agreement in order to construct the final phase of an approved Specific Plan. The EIR analysis concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan, including the final phase would result in localized and basin-wide cumulative exceedances of air quality standards. All emissions were determined to be at or above thresholds during construction and operation even with mnigation. The proposed project impacts are relatively the same as those evaluated in the EIR. Note that regional air quality is improving slowly as vehicle emissions are reduced with new vehicles replacing older vehicles. This change does not alter the fact that emissions from the Specific Plan are considered significant because they exceed thresholds, butthe fulfillment of the Specific Plan, from a jobslhousing standpoint and due to reduced vehicle miles traveled for local residents seeking Mall retail facilities, are consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan presently in place. 15.c Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project does not include uses or encompass a large enough project to cause significant changes in area climate. No impact was identified and no mnigation was required. 15.d Imoacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIR The EIR did not evaluate the potential for significant odor generation or exposure. During construction, the proposed project includes operations that will have diesel odors associated with equipment and materials. None of these odors are pennanent, nor are they nonnally considered so offensive as to cause sensitive receptors to complain. Diesel fuel odors from construction equipment and new asphatt paving fall into this category. Both based on the short-tenn of the emissions and the, characteristics of these emissions, no significant odor impacts are forecast to result from implementing the proposed project. Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, and implementation of the . . 'referenced air quality standard condnions and mitigation measures in the EIR, air quality issues are forecast to experience significant adverse impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, air quality issues related specifically to the proposed project, a time extension of a Development Agreement and construction of the final phase of a Specific Plan will contribute to the potentially significant adverse impacts from project implementation. All air quality issues are forecast to experience significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. The impacts will'remain relatively the same as were analyzed in the EIR. No new mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the TRC Final EIR. ' ! emect.4a Regional center Initial Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY tssues (and SUpporting lnloonation Sources): Potentially Significant ""'Oct Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated lass than Significant No Iflllacl ~ 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? y b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? y c) Does the project have impacts which are 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.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? y y , Substantiation: The proposed project consists of a proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the tenn of the Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an additional three years to provide for the future development of.the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of .the approved Temecula Regional Center Specffic Plan. The project is part of the City of T emecula Specific Plari No. 263. The construction and operation of this proposed project has been evaluated as having no potentially significant ,effects that are signfficantly greater than those analyzed in the EIR and that would not be reduced to less than signfficantlevel with mitigation incorporated from the Specffic Plan EIR. In addition, changes in circumstances for issues such as biological resources (MSHCP), water quality (SWPPP and WQMP) and air quality (better regional air quality) do not resuK in additional signfficanl adverse impact that requires new mitigation measures. The following text summarizes potential impacts and recommendations. " 16a: 'Potentially signfficant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project have been identffied in the areas of biological and cultural resources for the Specffic Plan in the Specffic Plan EIR. However, based on techriical studies for these issues, all but cumulative imfJacts to Wildlffe and Vegetation were reduced to a less than signfficant impact level by implementing the mitigation measures identffied in Sections 7 and g of this Initial Study. With mitigation, all biological and cultural resources impacts were reduced to a less than signfficant level, except for cumulative impacts. 'No further analysis of these two T emecula Regional Center lnitiaI S1udy1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES , t ) City at T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY issue areas is required and the findings of this Initial Study are consistent with the findings in the certified TRC EIR for these two issues. The proposed project is being constructed on an already urbanized site and biology mitigation measures have been fulfilled and are no longer applicable. Generally, the potential effects on cultural resources have also already occurred and mitigation implemented.' However, some impacts may occur and mitigation for cultural resources in the TRC EIR will be implemented to ensure that they remain the same as those evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR. 16b &c. Potentially significant long-term and cumulative impacts of the proposed project as part of the Specific Plan were analyzed in the EIR and were associated with the following areas: transportation/circulation, air quality, seismic safety, agricultural lands, noise, circulation, wildlife/vegetation, flood/drainage, public facilities, and utilities. The adverse long-term and cumulative impacts in these areas would not be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. No further analysis of these issues is required. All other issues with a potential for cumulative impact or short-tenn impacts to the detriment of the long-term environment were determined to be less than significant, or in some cases less than significant with implementation of mitigation. No further analysIS of these cumulative issue areas is required and the findings of this Initial Study are consistent with the findings in the certified TRC EIR for these issues. The proposed project would have impacts that remain relatively the same as those evaluated in the Specific Plim EIR. 16d. The project complies with existing land use designations and zoning and with mitigation (or mandatory design requirements) for aesthetic issues, hazards, and noise impacts. Even with mitigation, potential air quality, circulation, seismic safety, flood/drainage, public facilities, utilities and noise impacts associated with the Specific Plan, and this the final phase of development, wOlJld result in exposure of humans to substantial adverse impacts due to the cumulative impacts of general growth in the area that cannot be mitigated to a level of non-significance. No further analysis of these human impact issue areas is required and the findings of this Initial Study are consistent with the findings in the certified TRC EIR for these issues. The proposed project would have impacts that remain relatively the same as those evaluated in \he Specific Plan EIR. , Conclusion The proposed project is the extension of the existing development agreement during which the final phase of development will be implemented. The project analyzed in this document is essentially the same as the project analyzed in the T emecula Regional Center EIR. Thus, this Initial Study was prepared to determine what the impacts of the revised project, which consists of a time extension of a Development Agreement in order to , develop the final phase of a Specific Plan, would be equivalent to thai analyzed in the EIR. This finding is based on implementation of mitigation measures identified in the original EIR and City imposition of and , enforcement of mandatory or standard conditions of approval when the final phase of the Specific Plan is implemented. The analysis indicates that no new significant effects will be caused by including this modification to the overall project analyzed in the EIR. The impactS will remain relatively the same as , , analyzed in the EIR. Because no new mitigation measures have been identffied and required for the proposed project to ensure no signifrcant impacts will result from its implementation, the City can issue an Addendum to the certified TRC EIR a~ the approptiateCEQA environmental detennination. Neither a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR nor a Negative Declaration is required to comply with CEOA for this project. The City will adopt an Addendum to the EIR for the proposed project. The City Council will consider adoption of an Addendum to the certified Temecula Regional Center EIR to consider in conjunction with a decision on whether to proceed with the Development Agreement amendment and final phase 01 the Specific Plan as desctibed in this document. '~ TemeculaR_~ ,_ SIudyJ0e3106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily ofT emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY Yes No 17. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMIS' IMPACT FINDINGS. a) Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife? Wildlife is defined as 'all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). y The proposed project is the time extension of a Development Agreement for the purpose of completing the final phase of a Specific Plan within a completely disturbed site. The site is a developed shopping center and the project would be developed within an area that is completely paved. ' 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. A previous CEQA analysis of the site for the proposed project includes the EIR for the Temecula Regional Center (Specific Plan 263) which was certified in July 1993. The recently adopted City General Plan EIR, 2005, also provided substantiating data utilized in the Initial Study. The proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan analyzed in the TRC EIR. Temecuta Regional Center .Initiaf Study1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula Temecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY FIGURES , Temecula Regional Center Initial StudylOO3106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Cily of T emecula Temecu(a Regional Center. INITIAL STUDY IB!iIiIl! XMapt.)4.5 Data use subjecttD ficense. @2004DeLonne.XMapt!l4.5. vwwt.deIor:me.com v ~ml o 2 4 6 8 1Q Data loom 9-0 MN(12.7'E) T emecuta Regional Center Initial Study1063106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES City of T emecula T emecula Regional Center INITIAL STUDY Data use subject to license. ,g 2004 Delonne. XMap(l!l45, lINWt.delonne.com 1 ~" o 8ll 1600 2400 3D) ~ Data Zoom 13-0 MN (12.7" E) T emecuIa Regional Ceotec l~tiaI StudyI083106. TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES ATTACHMENT NO.6 EIR ADDENDUM G:IPlanning\2007\PA07.Q154 Promenade MalllPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 12 ADDENDUM TO THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This document is an Addendum to the Temecula Regional Center Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines section 15164(a) (14 Cal. Code of Regs. ~15000 et. seQ.), the City of Temecula has prepared this Addendum to make a minor change to a previously certified EIR. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164(e), the Addendum must include a brief explanation of the City's decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Project Description and Background The City of Temecula proposes to extend a Development Agreement (due to expire in January 2007) for a period of three years to expire in January 2010, for subsequent construction I of the final phase of retail commercial space and parking facilities within the Temecula Regional , Center core commercial area in an area. The proposed project would be developed within Planning Area 2 of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP 263) and would be located primarily between the current Macy's department store and Edwards Cinema and also on the north side of the Edwards Cinema within the current core shopping area. The existing Regional Center currently has 2,117,545 square feet of existing and approved development. The approved Specific Plan for the Temecula Regional Center allows up to 2,483,000 square feet of development. The extension of the Development Agreement would continue the agreement with the City under which the development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the Specific Plan would be implemented. 10 1993 the City of Temecula certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the construction and occupancy of a new regional retail center, business and office center, and hotel and residential area, entitled the "Temecula Regional Center EIR". The EIR addressed the construction and operation of all allowed uses and intensities of uses for the proposed regional center. 'The current Development Agreement, adopted in December 1996, sets forth the obligations of the developer and the City in order for development to be consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. Under the proposed Development Agreement, the final phase of Specific , Plan implementation would occur, allowing for buildout of the Specific Plan. The additional square footage of 'retail, space would be developed as, part of the Temecula Regional Center consistent with the approved Specific Plan in the same manner required by the current Development Agreement. The proposed Development Agreement outlines the responsibilities of the developer, Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., and the City to complete the Specific 'Plan process. Legal Standard As noted above, an addendum should include a brief explanation of the lead agency's decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR. A lead agency may only require the preparation of a 915441.1 August 30, 2006 1 subsequent or supplemental EIR under very narrow circumstances. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states: "a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no , subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless that lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the . project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be infeasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant' effects . of the project, but the project' proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives; or (D) Mitigation meaSures or alternatives which'are considerably different from 'those analyzed in the, previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on ,the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." Further, Section 15163 allows for the preparation of a supplement to an EIR in the following circumstances: " "(a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if; , 915441.1 AUgusI30,2006 2 (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation." CEQA Findings The City prepared an Initial Study to detennine whether the extension of the Development Agreement or construction of the final Phase of the Specific Plan triggered any of the conditions (described above) which require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. The City hereby incorporates the Initial Study as part of this Addendum. The Initial Study evaluated the impacts of the proposed extension of the Development Agreement on Land Use and Planning, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Population and Housing, Transportation/Circulation, Water, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Cultural Resources, Recreation, Aesthetics, GeophysiCal, Hazards, Noise, Air Quality and , Mandatory Findings of Significance. The Initial Study compared the environmental impacts of the proposed extension of the Development Agreement with the identified environmental impacts of the approved Development Agreement evaluated in the previously certified Temecula Regional Center EIR. The analysis in the Initial Study indicates that no new significant ,effects will be caused by proposed extension to the Development Agreement and subsequent construction of the final phase of the Specific Plan. Nor will the proposed extension to the Development Agreement increase the severity of any previously identified significant impact. The impacts will remain the same as analyzed in the Temecula Regional Center EIR. The Initial Study also analyzed whether new circumstances would result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Initial Study found that no new circumstances exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. Further, the Initial Study analyzed whether new information exists that indicates that the project,would introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or whether any new information suggests new mitigation measures or shows that the mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible are in fact feasible. The Initial Study found no new information that suggested new significant effect or increased the severity of previously identified effects. Nor did any new information suggest new mitigation measures or suggest that mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible were in fact feasible. Because the Initial Study finds no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and, no change in the, mitigation measures previously discussed, the City finds that a supplemental or subsequentEIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on this Addendum to approve the proposed extension to the Development Agreement. 91544L1 August 30, 2006 3 ATTACHMENT NO.7 CONFORMED COPY OF NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR EIR ADDENDUM G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.07.doc 13 r;~)lr~;i-~-;- :' ----; y t~~i I.' STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ASH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL ALlNG FEE CASH RECEIPT ::.. OCT 2 7 7006 l~:~~ Receipt # 200601088 Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA Date: 09/13/2006 COUnty Agency of Filing: Riverside Document No: 200601088 Praject Tille: TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM NO.3 Ef.'- Praject.~pplicantName: CITY OF TEMECULA Phone Number: Project Applicant Address: 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA CA 92590 Prajecl Applicant: Local Public Agency CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ~ Environmental Impact Report o Negative Declaration o Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources ConJro/ Board Only) o Project Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs ~ County Administration Fee o Project that ;sexemptfromfees (DeMinimis Exemption) o Project/hat is exempt fromfees (Notice of Exemption) $850.00 $64.00 Total Received $914.00 Signature and title of person receiving payment: ~ ,~~~ ~~.. Noles: , " City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Determination County Clerk and Recorders Office County of Riverside P.O. Box 751 Riverside, CA 92501-0751 TO: FROM: Planning Department Ci~ of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determ\t,ation in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. State Clearinghouse No.: Project Title: Project Location: [FRIV~RSIDlhou! LQ) :if? 1 3 2006 LARRY W. WARD, CLERK By J~..M T. Marshall 7. Depu~ Project Description: Lead Agency: Contact Person: Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan EIR Addendum NO.3 The proposed project is an amendment to extend a Development Agreement and the final phase of development within the 179 acre (excluding roads) Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263) in the City of Temecula bound by Winchester Road to the north, Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west within an:. unsectioned area of Township 7 South, Range 3 West San Ber!Jil.rofno' ,. Meridian on the USGS Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series T.oj:l1:lgraphic Map (see Figures 1 and 2) " . A proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the tenn' of the Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an additionaf three years to provide for the future development of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan City of Temecula Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters Telephone Number: (951) 694-6400 This is to advise you that the City Council for the City of T emecula has approved the above described project on September 12, 2006 and has made the following determinations regarding this project: 1. The project ([ ] will [X] will not) have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That ([X] An Environmental Impact Report [ '] A Negative Declaration) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEOA. 3. Mitigation measures ([X] were [ ] were not) made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Statement of Overriding Consideration ([X] was [ ] was not) adopted for this project. 5. Findings ([X] were [ ] were not) made pursuant to the proviSions of CEOA. This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments, responses, and record of project approval is available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590. Signature: ' ~~~~Y/LZ.. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Date: y?g-V~~~~r~~nation POSTED ,)tP 10 Zll1lb Removec: /0,(0 ,;p--6 By: r;;rr" ~ Depl. Cl'lllntv of Rivpr<::.inA ~t::lot", of r.::.lifnrnj~ Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office: ATTACHMENT NO.8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING G:IPlanning\2DD7lPAD7.Q154 Promenade Mall\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT rev 2.21.D7.doc 14 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: CEQA Action: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Planning Application No. PA07-0154 Forest City Commercial Development Promenade Mall, between Macy's and Edwards Cinema within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263) in the City of T emecula bound by Winchester Road to the north, Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west A site plan Modification Application to change a building footprint, drive aisle, parking orientation, and landscaping of the approved Temecula Promenade Mall Expansion Plans (PA06-0293) CEQA Section 15162; consistent with the previously approved EIR and is exempt from further Environmental Review Cheryl Kitzerow and Malt Peters, Associate Planners City of Temecula, Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 June 20, 2007 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. G:lPIanning\2007\PA07-0154 Promenade MallIPJanning\6.20.07 NOPH-PC.doc ITEM #3 ''"', CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission Katie Le Comte, Assistant Planner June 20, 2007 Continuation of PA07 -0111 Staff is requesting that PA07-0111 be continued to the Planning Commission Hearing of September 19, 2007 in order to allow for additional time to address issues regarding Floor Area Ratio. Thank you for your understanding. ' G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0111 Elite's Plaza Major Modification\Planning\Continuation Memo.doc 1