HomeMy WebLinkAbout011608 PC Agenda
II
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 j3USINESS PARK DRIVE
January 16, 2008 - 6:00 P.M.
********
Next in Order:
Resolution No. 2008-07
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Carey
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 Commission 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.
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.
1 Director's Hearina Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for November and December, 2007
R:\PLANCOMM'Agendas\200B\Ol160B.doc
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2 Plannina Application Nos. PA07-0299 and PA07-0300. Development Plan applications for
the review and approval (business item - no public hearing) of updated mall entrances
(PA07 -0299) and architectural elevations for the retail and restaurant buildinas.
landscape/hardscape and liahtina (PA07-0300\ gursuant to a Condition of Approval of a
previouslv approved Development Plan (PA06-0293). Matt Peters and Chervl Kitzerow.
Associate Planners.
CONSENT CALENDAR
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.
New Items
3 Plannina Application No. PA07-0286. a Maior Modification application. submitted bv Forest
Citv Development Corooration. to construct an additional )?arkina level (deck) at the west
parkina structure at the Promenade Mall expansion in addition to proposed modifications to
the floor plans and elevations of the west parkina structure to accommodate trash service
and as well as a site plan modification for a bus turnout. located between Macv's and
Edwards Cinema. bound bv Ynez Road. Winchester Road. Maraarita Road and Overland
Road. Chervl Kitzerow/Matt Peters. Associate Planners.
4 Plannina Aoplication No. PA07-0316. a Maior Modification application. submitted bv Forest
Citv Development Corporation. to provide for vehicular and pedestrian enhancements to the
Rina Road at the Promenade Mall. and site modifications to include additional traffic sianals..
all-wav stops. access reconfiauration. modified stripina and sianaae. enhanced pedestrian
crossinas. and aisle closures with associated landscape modifications bound by Ynez Road.
Winchester Road. Maraarita Road and Overland Road. Chervl Kitzerow/Matt Peters..
Associate Planners.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Wednesday, February 6, 2008, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:\PLANCOMM'Agendas\200B\01160B.doc
2
ITEM #1
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE: January 16, 2008
SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for November 2007.
Date
November 8, 2007
I Case No.
PA06-0363
November 8, 2007
PA07-0116
November 15, 2007 PA06-0245
November 15, 2007 PA07-0251
November 29,2007 PA07-0247
Attachment:
Proposal
A Tentative Parcel Map with Final
Map Waiver (TPM 35319) to
establish six office condominium
units within the Park Place office
building, located at the southwest
corner of Winchester and Diaz
Roads
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to
upgrade the license from a Type
41 to a Type 47 and to serve
alcohol on an existing patio,
located at 29000 Old Town Front
Street
A Tentative Parcel Map to
subdivide a 5.5 acre parcel into
two lots, located at 30876 Lolita
Road
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to
allow for the sale of alcohol (Type
47) at the Melting Pot, located at
39738 Wincehster Road
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to
operate a religious institution
within a 1,910 square foot suite of
an existing 26,584 square foot
commercial building, located at
41743 Enterorise Circle North
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
R:\0IRHEARIMEMO\200BIOl-16-200B.doc
Applicant
Salim Purmul
Rafael Chavez
Fred Connary
Bart and Velma
Bandy
Alfred Johnson
Action
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
R:\DIRHEARIMEM0\200B\Ol-16-200B doc
ATTACHMENT NO.1
ACTION AGENDAS
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 8, 2007
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Director of
Planning on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Director of Planning about an item not listed on
the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
Principal Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
Item No. 1
1 :30 PM
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
PA06-0363
Tentative Parcel Map
Park Place Building TPM
Hossein Zomorrodi, K&S Engineering
A Tentative Parcel Map with a Final Map Waiver (TPM
35319) to establish six office condominium units within the
Park Place office building
Southwest corner of Winchester and Diaz Roads
CEQA Section 15315, Class 15, Minor Land Divisions
Christine Damko
APPROVED
Location:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
Item No.2
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
PA07-0116
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Country Garden Restaurant
Rafael Chavez
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade the liquor license
from a type 41 (on sale beer and wine - eating place) to a
type 47 (on sale general-eating place) and to serve alcohol
on an existing patio
29000 Old Town Front Street, Suite A
CEQA Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities
Eric Jones
APPROVED
Location:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
P:\Plannillg\Oirectors-Hearing\2007\11-08-2007 Action Agenda.doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 2007
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Director of
Planning on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Director of Planning about an item not listed on
the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
Principal Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
Item No.1
1 :30 PM
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
Location:
Environmental Action:
PA06-0245
Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Parcel Map 33488
Fred Connary
A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 5.5 acre parcel into
two lots, each with a minimum lot size of 2.5 net acres
30876 Lolita Road
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act
Katie Le Comte
APPROVED
Project Planner:
ACTION:
Item No.2
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
Location:
PA07-0251
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Melting Pot Minor CUP
Bart and Velma Bandy
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the sale of
alcohol (Type 47, on-sale general-restaurant)
Northeast corner of Winchester and Nicolas Roads at 39738
Winchester Road
CEQA Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities
Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters
APPROVED
Environmental Action:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
P:\Planning\Directors.Hearlng\2007\ 11-15-2007 Action Agenda.doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2007 1 :30 p.m.
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
rninutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
Item No.1
1 :30 p.m.
PA07-0247
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Unity Church CUP
Alfred Johnson
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a religious institution
within a 1,910 square foot suite of an existing 26,584 square foot
commercial building within the Business Park zone
41743 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 108
CEQA Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities
Betsy Lowrey
APPROVED
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
P:\Planning\Directors-Hearing\2007\ 11-29-2007 Action Agenda.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE: January 16, 2008
SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for December 2007.
Date Case No.
December 6,2007 PA07-0280
Proposal
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to
authorize a used automobile sales
facility and indoor showroom in an
existing 1,400 square foot light
industrial suite, located at 28710
Via Montezuma
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to
allow for the establishment of a
day spa within the Overland Retail
Center, located in Suite 105 at
41653 Marqarita Road
An Extension of Time for a
previously approved Tentative
Parcel Map (32158) to subdivide a
1.97 acre parcel into two industrial
lots totaling .98 and.99 acres,
located at 27447 Bostik Court
December 13, 2007 PA07-0283
December 20,2007 PA07-0138
Attachment:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
R:\DIRHEAR\MEM0\200B\01-16-200B.December.doc
Applicant
Art Bueno
Joseph and Judith
Roach
Dennis Janda
Action
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
ATTACHMENT NO.1
ACTION AGENDAS
R:\DIRHEARIM EM0\200B\01-16-200B.December.doc
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 06, 2007 1 :30 p.m.
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
Item No.1
1 :30 p.m.
PA07-0280
Minor Conditional Use Permit
AIIante Auto Sales
Art Bueno
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to authorize a used automobile sales
facility and indoor showroom (no outdoor display of vehicles) in an
existing 1,400 square foot light industrial suite
28710 Via Montezuma
CEQA Section 15301; Class 1 Existing Facilities
Katie Le Comte
APPROVED
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
P'\Planning\Directors-Hearing\2007\ 12-06-2007 Action Agenda.doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 13, 20071:30 p.m.
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Patrick Richardson, Principal Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address~
Item No.1
1 :30 p.m.
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
PA07-0283
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Spa Escape
Joseph and Judith Roach
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the establishment of a
day spa within the Overland Retail Center
Northwest corner of Margarita Road and Overland Drive at 41653
Margarita Road, Suite 105
CEQA Section 15301; Class 1 Existing Facilities
Dana Schuma
APPROVED
Location:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
P;\Planning\Directors-Hearing\2007\ 12-13-2007 Action Agenda.doc
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 20, 2007 1 :30 p.m.
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Steve Brown, Principal Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal
Planner.
When you are called to speak. please come forward and state vour name and address.
Item No.1
1 :30 p.m.
PA07-0138
Extension of Time
Extension of Time TPM 32158
Dennis Janda
An Extension of Time for a previously approved Tentative Parcel
Map (32158) to subdivide a 1.97 acre parcel into two industrial lots
totaling .98 and .99 acres
27447 Bostik Court
CEQA Section 15315; Class 15, Minor Land Division
Eric Jones
APPROVED
Project Number:
Project Type:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Description:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Project Planner:
ACTION:
P:\Planning\Oirectors-Hearing\2007\12-20-2007 Action Agenda.doc
ITEM #2
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
Matthew Peters and Cheryl Kitzerow, Associate Planners
DATE:
January 16, 2008
SUBJECT:
Planning Application PA07-0299, Updated Mall Entrances
Planning Application PA07-0300, Main Street Elevations, Landscape/Hardscape,
and Lighting
BACKGROUND
On February 21, 2007 the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-
0293, a Development Plan to expand the Promenade Mall by 125,950 square feet with an
outdoor life-style main street shopping center consistent with square footage allowed in the
TemecuJa Regional Center Specific Plan. This application also included a Conditional Use
Permit to construct two parking structures.
At the time of approval the elevations and other plan details were mostly conceptual; therefore
the Planning Commission placed the following condition on the project:
. 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 Gf....tRs f.'~S~:23S shall substantially conform to the
approved site plan and conceptual elevations presented to the Planning
Commission on February 21, 2007 containod on file wifJ-; lha-P'::~~'~g Dopnrtmont.
(modified by Planning Commission 2/21/07).
ANALYSIS
PA07-0299. Updated Mall Entrances
This application includes revised elevations for the following mall entrances:
E1. West Court (by Macy's)
E2. North Court (aligned with Main Street)
E3. Cinema Plaza
E4. Mall Entrance between Sears and J.C. Penney's
E5. Mall Entrance between J.C. Penney's and Macy's
E6. Mall Entrance between both Macy's buildings
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main 51. Elevations\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Entries and Main St
Elevations.doc
The proposal is to replace the existing entrances characterized by pinwheels and jazz
instruments in primary colors with a more timeless and classical look highlighted by neutral
colors, generous amounts of glass, and a bronze/cursive "P" Promenade Mall logo. The
applicant has described the new design theme as promoting "sophistication and elegance." The
entries will be comprised of a structural glass system devoid of mullions in order to provide
uninterrupted views and a seamless transition from the existing enclosed mall to the new Main
Street. The new design for the entrances is consistent with a much larger "makeover" to the
mall that will include new monument signs at all the entrances to the Ring Road and new
signage and lighting along the Main Street. A Conceptual Sign Program was submitted with this
application; however a formal application is scheduled to be submitted in January 2008 and will
also be brought back to the Planning Commission as a Current Business Item.
PA07-0300. Main Street Elevations. Landscaoe/Hardscaoe. and Liahtina
The Main Street elevations will consist of a classic contemporary style. Roof heights will vary in
order to transition from the height of the mall building down to one and two story buildings along
Main Street. Varying the roof heights will also provide the appearance of a Main Street that has
been built over time. Materials will vary greatly (stone, tile, brick, granite, etc...). In addition, the
materials from the buildings on the new Main Street will be "wrapped" inside the mall to further
reinforce the seamless transition between the enclosed Mall and the new Main Street.
Landscaping will include pedestrian scale trees along Main Street and taller palms to define
gateway areas. There will be ground plane planters to create soft edges and separate the
sidewalk from street. The planters will be placed appropriately to provide breaks for pedestrian
access. The project has been conditioned to provide 50% shading of the parking lot.
The hardscape along Main Street and within all the plaza areas will contain traditional pattern
pavers with colored concrete accents at special areas, comfortable street furniture, fountains
and fireplaces as focal points and gathering spaces.
According to the applicant, Cinema Plaza has been modeled after traditional European Plazas
with the goal of "activating" the space by removing the trellises and other stationary objects that
hindered movement and sight lines. New walkways will be arranged on an axial pattern with a
fountain in the center, the entrance to the Mall to the north, an interactive water feature to the
west, a stage for outdoor performances and events to the east. and the Cinema across Main
Street to the south. This area will serve as a community town square and mark the beginning of
Main Street.
Lighting will be highly varied and consist of decorative wall mounted lighting, dramatic up-
lighting, two fixture street lights, and rope lighting in paseos.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Applications (PA07-
0299 and PA07-0300) as Current Business Items.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 3
2. Exhibits fDr PA07-0299, Updated Mall Entrances - Blue Page 4
G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0299 MaJl Minor Mod - Main St Elevations\Planning\PC staff report MEMO. Mall Entries and Main St
Elevations.doc
2
3. Exhibits for PA07-0300, Main Street Elevations, Landscape/Hardscape, and Lighting-
Blue Page 5
4. Draft Conditions of Approval for Updated Mall Entrances (PA07-0299) - Blue Page 6
5. Draft Conditions of Approval for Main Street Elevations, Landscape/Hardscape, and
Lighting (PA07-0300) - Blue Page 7
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Entries and Main 8t
Elevations. doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G',\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Malt Minor Mod _ Main St. Elevatlons\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Entries and Main 8t
Elevations.doc
4
/
/,
/ / 0
260 520
, ' , - .,.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
EXHIBITS FOR PA07-0299, UPDATED MALL ENTRANCES
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Entries and Main 8t
Elevations.doc
5
l \
~\ \\\
:\ \ \
;\', \ \ \,
"1'1,,,<\,1
J) .. \
\Y ",
,p
(.@ ~.,
t9 \2DGJ I ..~
C'Jf"OB' ~ r
\\
1\
'i\ \ \
\ " '\ \'i\
. \ ~ ~ ,
'~ \ \ \ . \
. \ \ ,
" \ , . . \
'. \ \ \ ~
~ ~ \ \ ~ \
" \
\ \ \ \ t~
" " \
~ \ ~
\ , \
\ , Bf,
\ \
>.i
\ , :-> ,
, 0
\ i' 0
'. 0
C> 0
~\\
.~
ii
',1\1:
. "(k
,~
\ ~
'i
Ii'
C", '
._ ',J
c,~.\ .. \
. _~^"UlQ!:l--- " \'i. ......------..13.......""".......
~~ ~ . '
~
J
~
..
3
~
a
~
o
\1
.\\t
j".
I
\\\.
\ t
\\~\\
r
\.'
,~.\
ht\
~i~ \~
*'{..
..
~-
~~
0"(, <D
~~ Ul
1!I~111'11111'1l
l,!l ~.
l!Wli 1 '!i.
imft!l' !ii
i!l~JH! IH
afiilhj, ii~
L
dill II
;J<i<l<l<l<l
..1
j
-l 1
,
I
i
I
!
'i 3
('" D "
I I
I I
,I~' ;
i ~: j,
, ,
I
I
r--
& y
0. <J) ~ ~:
c9CDCD I ~~
g~' ~~
~- m"
A
I
'" .
." t
. I~
Ipl
i-~-
,
J.
t".
:j
"
"
"
:1
IL.~:
H
I
I
~
j ~ j j h~
. Ig~..
, .. 'I ~ '
.I.JJ,,,, .. I
..
L- -
. [,i.- ~
" ~-l
,-' :
, "
, 14
..
>-
I!:
z
w
l;I
>-
l"
~
i!i!i!jli!i!i~lh
1/1
if'\. t
.i
, !
I , I
I I I
I II I
m', Ii. 'I !
!1 : !,iil: I I I!
l"I\lil1dllll\I!i!'
l~ !dlll!:PII.dilil
l: llHml~~m~~~~i
,.,
,
~
~
1
I
. .~
I
l~.
'.,. .,.
IJ
t
HI: I .- i
~
'" t .
,
: I
Ii I I
,-
~
I
i . I
I ! !
m ! I !II I !
I! 'I,iI': I I I
111 lj!IHI!H1i !Ipd
j Ii ltlllll/llllil!di'
~ ~!!HH!h~rll~!~~i
III
,.
i!'
ill
.,".,,.,, w".,.....
',.-,_"
",'-"""""'.'.'-
ATTACHMENT NO.3
EXHIBITS FOR PA07-0300, MAIN STREET ELEVATIONS, LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE,
AND LIGHTING
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Maln St. Elevations\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Entries and Main 8t
Elevations.doc
6
illiQ Ii!! I
1I~r., ~~
~~III'
i Ii I ~
!!!(j I ,gl
.JiiIll!Jlll..;
\ ,~
, \ \\
\.. \ 2J
o
~
C/)
c:::
<(
w
C/)
-=--
C/)
~
Z
Z
w
a.
~
~.
/~
~
Jl
C\I
C/)
>-
()
<(
:2
I---M:
I
~ IIIII
'1<1<1<1<1<1
lldll ~
~ tri. ,I ~
I:
q
C'I
,<(
I
~ (L~i
'\;'" y. ~ I) j
, ' '" ):;~~J:i I! i
# . .;. e---=nr, H HII
--J. ~ ~ j-g oi&'l
~iji .~Iic:::t.1n" == ~L 'I t~,1
. - = = IT II fl'
..:. - = III.! i
1-. = I\.UmI 1'11'1
~ ~IIIIII !l ~h'
q ~ rlH#J W
Ii ~ ~ !i
Ii ~ ~~~Ii
I! ~ rUlJ1l ~ ;~~
,I == ~ II lIT ~ ih
~l~~~
c:::::=
C/)
>-
.I~I'I'''.'~ ~~~I ;: ~ ~
I'~ __. j' ~
.. .- fl&i "-J
· Jt~-~-';..-- :m n ifit Rs
~I 1 i J ~ij . B
fl.:: I is;S! t! ! I ~
.. 1 '~l . ~f~ ".1 \ ~
1" ~~'f
t I!lHiH ~
I _ -'.. _. _~.
,
&t';~
i --/
.~ Wl~
= L
~M
= L
~ Wi~
:: L
~~
- ~
'=
~C
t!~i
oil'
'I~i
~;;i r
~~:::.~
~ ~"
.n.
e;::_!i'
l!l: :::l.~~
.m,.,
~]~L
/ ;;j~~i~l~
~s ,l.'"'i)
~h~h
.--. ....-- r--:
, '-
= ="
I~
idllllllll
7Jllt
';;; ~
j;
1--'
, ,
I-'
,-'
, ,
!--'
J
I-'
, .
~
'-'
, ,
]
IT
n
IT
I ~
\"1
1
n
,
n
L
n
o
n
rr
f..-
~
--$'t.'
n
,
D-
,
1m
I'
(~
,'::t
CD CDt~ CD ~: @ ,
II, I I' ~ \'~
,,~ ' I ...J"""
..... I I, \ 'I . I, Il-- ___m .-"oo I
i--'~~:~. ;t1If~~T- ~~I- ~-~
@
1m
......,~&itF-~
~~::.a=
~:r~~~
r=rm
~
~
.".....,,"".
~\J'LO\NG A. - WEST ELEVJ..l1ON
6=
,6._
~, 6._
.~=
o
CD
00
~....
~
n_, 'I \ I' ,
~ I~.' r4
I 1 ....
~-r~:C~----'
--""fl. II ~ J
~I
"""
---"""""
~~JIIOO..S
r w-,
I '
n -- ____+_m__ . -~ T
m n nl
+---
:r~
.k~
~~
a~ElJ
fP)
aUflDING A - NORTH ElEVAl10N
~
(1) CDtt..CD CD
L .~ .;r:"" ttt t
I. II ii' - i
I
-::::-f--
CD t t CD @t ,.f CD t" CD
.~,' ,~_t
. ~ M~ " '..~ -+111\" ~
__ - - - ::' 4f:!.:::~-t-t: -~~_ ~: - I~ nil ~='~'':~
1~:~:_:t!L ~( [~
-t"" L ~ IL\.....
FoREStCrrY
~ . . . ~ '" r ... ." f'"
~3: -
-:'J;
I
,~
PROMIiNAD'
TIIMIICOLA
r \ _
""L L~L L L ~'L ","".
BUILDING A -EAST ELEVATION
,-;::
(\) CD CD
t~, fl, MJ.~
~~".
, I I
;- l-.-'--"~ )
~'--I-~~~"'S~ .
LL" \:' L
-t (~
:#:
,-
,..
:.::;. I-
e_I::'"
=""'- -
-
~,~-.
a.EVAl1ON8
BlJL!lH3 - A
-t
,
I
~.
i.
,~4
i::A. A3.1
,0;::
\,.
BUILDING A - SOUTH ELEVATION
irfl !1 w ~ ....
c. J LJJJ r
~ ~ ~ ~ ;5
I ~,[ell ~~ ~ C'l
mil'" r . 'fJLJ~ Ii ~~ :I.iJli.,h~i l")
"g !', III Jill J <(
'I' "I ~" .2. .
~Ilfil; dl. -1<1<1<1<1<1 ..
N - ~ ....
~ ~ ill ill
..
,
,
..-.I'
./l-':"
,-
~--{ 5 111' ,-,,'-
~--t."~-, ,
<:) $. 1
@ .-.1 I'i'
~ tfi. ~ i.' ,-" Ifl.
I ~' t '''--
.!I I, t
o -.... ~-":'-'+l'.]
~-7 -- '~,;: @l
~ hI' I
~_.i ~1 ::::~
-#2--;JH- ,~~ z
lJ 11 __ I. ..<>-,0, ~
""'"- (f1 "-~ ~ ~
....., --...t" - --.J:c::r::"jl tIi
~ -4- ~::-J !l'
rp I :" ,iI ~
~k-f 1 ~
~ ~._." m
~--~,~ ~ f:-<=:;
~ , ,.......~ . '
'+ ,.-p'-,L
~--:;---I i: ~".~T
~-~]- _ '.uIJ,
o -..
~, I
~-A; . t' '.:. '" ,
~. -; ~
\.-'- 1111 ~
<:) I,.J., e 5'
~ ~ JJ _ ~ t
J. =-;0-::'-;.1:'--
,-~
l
"
1---:
I--'
, .
r--:
"
l
: ;'-.&-"-1..-..
~-- ;-"'-'-11':1
~ ' - -.- ,
,,' ~ .~.I"
"","-__" I' +-< ""
" ' ..: @ l
~,~l i \J~II~r
o ~ , >-JJ
@? I ..f, -Ill z
~ ~t ~
G~' J'~f ~ ;
~ /" r- i===: g
~;g ~ ~ ~
- '--~' ~
"" " '3
~_G! _ J'-9J" J, ai
~ 4 ' ~
~- \.-' ", , '.f
~-.l..- ' '5"'1':1
U !~jJ
~- ' : -~I , 1!"-........l'l
.6" "
Elili-!, i :--- 11 .
~ : ,...'. 3e:? 1_
-"...
M
~ ;I~ ~ ~ !
<~~ 0
~ '
"
l-- -,
I .
r--:
t:::::L t-:
>--'
J
I' H'
'115
8/ii-
~ i
I
I
I
11 d
, I
=n~1
4e----
0)
@
~-
!
I==
i~ J -:'..-.1-
i c z
~ ,; ~ !
I
m
"
z
9
5
m
....J
@) ,
~. ,'I
o ~~j1~
(." ~
:=: -:::::1 ..~
o 9
8
~--.(
o
k-:" ,.
--,.' . 'Y
, "~~
' ". '.
1 " ,
- J
i
~ ~
,.
----'
Im-.
>----<
------'_.~ ,
~-
"~
..-...~
.l'-'"
e 11~~J
, ,-
, ""'-JJ'
r-----'- ",,-.11
e
z
o
F=
~
_~, w
.-/ ~
o
z
G
U
::
f -
~=....._--
o
m
"
z
15
~
5
m
@
o
o
!
~
I.
"
"
t---~
'--...
__=L bd.. _]
1\
~~t\1
1
,
~
.. )rl"
.. FI>'
,-
~-~€
~--..~
e *
, ..
~, pC" 1\
@
i~ !:--I,..." I..
\\(~ \ ~
o '-"
~-\l--L.
~_....J.l.
f~~f"'''
, ,1-;'
T~IJ'
\ ~\ /_~
-n' .
,1m
rl'll
II ;." ''': a
-\..-__ ..t ~
.... ~
,;; '"
G ~ 1--- iJ' %
~} ~.. ~
Lllr-- - ~ "'
V '\3- <..')
, cz.
.~ f,=J:Z \, \
~. l<l ~i I\_~
~ -~--~
~....... .~
~);. F;c----~\;'
~.1 rJI-:---\-- \.'P ~
~-A'\\ . r-.....l5" '
~'{'J l' h',--~ . -1\ -- "
~~~ ...-;i-----..i~\
1.
\\
\\
,
,
,
~-~
f
~-~..
.~
c,;~ l'
.~~
~___~_ JI- ' a
.. .. ,p.. F
IJ-- ",:\C... . ~
~-~:~ ~Ii>
~_~1.- -I: ,..." \" ~=. ~
Gl "'
~ ~
'!'
. 11\ I~ ~
(: ...., lW "'
_ ,.a ~ \n~~_
~~ -~_':: \ (--- \ \
~ ~,liief' '
~-~--~ ~'
Lt!.,.---tl-' ,- U\t'
"'0' l\
II
~--t.\'::
~
.
e "
-- "
.......h
['-..
". mlJl
,,: "",,-
~, .."",:.-$1
.. ..~.,
.. ..-SIt
~
0(1
j,
1.
, '
~
# ~'\
-<,
~ <,-~.IJ> ...t
. ~\..:iJL!!O' " \II '"
~l?'" ~~
'.~
i
\\
1
o
,; ,.~..\
,
,
,
~t ,
,
,
IC
o
,
~~-- ,
\ I' Gl~
I, \\ \ ~' C'l
~1.1 \.l\P- \
f(,
~
r"
... .. ..--.~;-,..,
,~, 01 . ~
16' 1\ 1 ~
e \ \~;-
, :a-
.. Jl-P<
sr-."
L-.J
e
lr '..
~
~
!il' '"
/' ~
Z.
,
'"
~
9
~
I,,': "
\'~r-= 5
\..- ~
W~
Ii>
:5
e.,' -, "'.
... r ..-" ll3l
., d- v
A~ ,. , ",/"L
<:lY:....-~$ \ ,,'C\
e It ,~
~::~V
~ ~. --~-" ,
@
~-~-- '.
, -,~
@ ,
'fl' ..;t
0"~~..J
K
'fl'
~-~--
k!r--~--
o
"
.,....
l 1" ~ ~
-1.' .
,
,
,
,
I
'"
'"
\
G
~,
@
~
,..-I
IE:
o
I.---
(
~
I. ..-
e
~
t
\~
.!-\ _ r::;::1 ~l.. 1
.....---^ ,.-' c::;::;. ~ ~ r:;::::.~
\
~I \ oP :. \
.<Jl ~-
~~ ~;~
. . Ii ~~
. ..e
~
..
~ ~
8
8 ~;
\,
, II
\ '
I I
I, 8
I
I,
<9
(0
\ ~
8
~-
t; e e
5 ~
~ ~ ---~- ~
~- > ~
'de w ~
~ @ . w
~- - ~ F
i@r- ~
e '" ~---
, \ I
\ ~ i\
" " ~ "
" " "
'" % I ~
98 \ " I 5
;! 0 5
5 " , ..
.. .. ,
I
\ \\ ~r~ ~\
:\i.i \. ~~\\i ~
..
~'
U
l~
e
t!
\~\
8
:~ \,\
\\
-..-~ \ ,
1\ i 1-----T e ~\
e Ii 4r\--i-
~- _...1 ' '
,\ ~r
Ii i G
r , \ . .
, I"
@+.... ' II
I,
, II
I,
, . ' II
I,
"'i, ,
\!l \'
8 @
@ . \ \ \ . .
,
, ~~~~
.--' r. r ,...--' r. ~ .--" ~ ~
I . --'- J.---'
V'C\f '.' J ~...
0- ........' .0
llNOU.V..-&
llClISll(i!
.
- .-
- -:-:
.!1~
.J II.V tg~ ~l t'l
J..I.OISllIO:I
v 1n;:JIIIlS ~
saYNS~Ol:ld
(ffj
Ejl~m
~[I]
..I[i
%W
'~]"":1
6"1V.l..lJI'liI'"S~
.......". .....,
.~
.~"J---::::I
-7.
-~-
=...:.t~~-~:;;b
av~.","I(,...=
~G:;~-'"
iii
NOlLV^313 H.HION - a fJNlalln8
= AJ_ ,....(Rj-. _, r') 1~wr:-'" ~IY""" r"'~ ....,];1
[] ~ i1 (, ~ - -- -~
"I I" -- . ,- ----- ----- - -I'.,---'-T.I7J-
".....::........ - -",' l"'f--.--e
_ T = _ - 1_ -' '- '_, T , L I ~ i 0...:1 ~ --
.. ,,/_,,- _~ 1 . "'"' 1IDf" w!y""" ""'" - ~.~
// / ~ .,\" , ~;'~'--'""
-- ~:~~, 0 ! ~ 0_~ 1" " ...
NOllY^313 ISY) ..:. 0 DNl01Jn8
fir') l ~ -l:J:)1 .[lID-, l l~)~t") .
~" ~I' ,---. ,m. '-OOj ~ij ~ U
,. 4f!Jjl~{Jrii-Y. ~ljHi:Jmmm'mm
~. 1,~ ~ ~iw' ~ ~
I
~..
~ ""\ "")
19j (Il:" ~I---
nnm~""_-'-~-'~-jj'-i"'-"
\
,
4
CD CD
NOLLV^313 HinDS - a DNI01lnB
,
(0
CD
~..
.. _,_, nn ~7'.,.. .... UU~, .~,H u. U~ ~J~;;7~'f
1 1 ,- I ~J~ijl"
, ,I ' , , ,I I
~ $ i ~ ~~~ i
~ ~ i
(v)@ (i) (>) $ (0) 0 ~
N0l1....^31~lS3M - 0 DNIOllna
\ ~--~~IJ~~+~\r(~::~ ~;';r~~~i
'~~~l1r'i.~l"1f~lt:fJ~C..':, l~
(i)@ (0 Co) (i) Co) (<)~.
...'-....
~".-
'-"'1'
. ~'i
ml!
ill
-11
j
~--$
U
L
[
L
[
L
L
L
L
L
o
--
~~.
....l'.t
~-~
[
Ilr.n i\\~
II,t'~1 ~.l
li\II'~ \ 1'\
ti~\
iW&\\\'\I~
.. \
o.
.(!l ...
~~'~ ~\\
i~ "'....
..
~
~
\\
~
~~
""G
Il\\\
\\
\\
#
t\)
?-~
---;1-1 ~
Ih ~
I" ~
"'
ic: 1 ~
\J %
- ;;
:1
h: ~
\'S'
, ,
. ,
-~ ~
o "".".-l
........ :1-' "
""," \'r- ~~I
~_ _ : i~\..,
.:"\ e~ ;5
lZ: I 8 I ~
-"'------' '"'
'lOVe \\ ,.,." I'::::~ ~
! Ii:=-- ~
~ __Io)~ ~
~~ l-J ~
~-~~~~ ~
"I%I~ . ,
e :
~/.:",\
f"\
~.
e ~ '"
'IJ \
~-
\\.
e
1 ".
'. .
Ir
~
~~,:~~ . ~ \>'
,~
_ ^' '.L..l
~. ;,>\ ,8~~
, l~~
~~- \ -\
'-"0 ~: \\
.t '" " ,-
.L:1II.--' >t'""\ ~i 1:<' ~
V <- : --t. I ~
\J\~ III ,~- ~
~ \ T t;
~--'i i ~
~j ~ /""" ~
V'..., ~ ---- f1:1
I ~-:-~
e l+ .
\~ :"(:~
. kil.
@- ~
~.:. " .-::'f;:l
, -( l";\'!
, '
~
,
~~ .~/ \~
0( :::b
~ - ~', \
~ ~ -.:: ~
-~ c p' 'l" ~
~. /~ ~
\\ i~ %
o ... ... '"
~_-' \ '11'-1
\ .~
~.-\ I~
0- ' \~1:: ~
" l'
~
#--~~~'tl :_~*" ~
W F- r::-- ~
~: \ -~~
II ' i !;."" \
~ \%I' ':1 h I
":0 \~ ~\i;- r:./~ ':;
v \F- \1 F-'~' S
'. \\ -
" " lb
@. c-~I" .
,l '-"t,
@ 0\,.1..1; \\-
@:r .
. \' \t1t~~
u.
,..-----.
.----'
I, \ n \\\\ IQ\
\n.U"t~1\i ~
~
~
~
~
14,
\ '" \~ ~
L': Ii ~
\
~ ~i ~
0' ': \f~ ' \
~ \ \'4\t ..-
c.\ : 7V I~ '"
, f _ \ !.::s
\' \ f~\ .-
(3) , : i~-ri@
-t\, ~\ 'k
e ~
" "-
,
'Q :
,
e
~
l" "'~
\.. ,r.
e :. I a;rr, , "" ~
@ ',-.11/> ~
~_ : ,\\--h ~
~d~~"\ .~ \
, \ . \...... \
",," ..
o if, '"
~_.\ ::l~ ~
I ' -r '5
A '"
- J
~
\\ ~
(3)
, k ,I.
,~. ,
j'.
,............
~
,..-----
--
lot
~ ,\
~
t ~
o [\\ ""
l'r
~:,~-:\
e~.~ Ir-' ~...
~___ \ ,1t:'"1 ~
I..... '" "'
, ~I ~
~--'-\ ~
e 1
\
~
<
,
i
~v\O
0~
~ \- -~.
~... .' '"
.. ~ , '-l
; '1:)j I'IJ
, '
~ '
.
\
L..-J.,. c;::: ~. r-
I'~ I'\~
1\\W,r. ~,
1\lIU~ I '!\
, .Ii
ii\(1
\m\i\\ .\.,
I~
,
,
~~\ , \
~
u\ \\ It\ ~ \
\nJ\.\l\\\i ~
~
\ \ > .'
~
\ '
i
l '
W II ~
~V'\\
rr;~ \
~, '
~ e-\....-- \
r ,t:? ~~
f-\ L_ J..- n ~I~ I "\ I
\\ @0 \--T' '" .~" ~l "\.
~~. L-\;->-l.-:: \ ~ ~ \'4.. \ \.
~ \:l J\\;\\\ . r;: ,
l} ~.: ~I{ " ~
~. \--\\\\\\\ IJ ~. ?' ' ' ~
~\ ~:::C.v ~~ V- " 3(i
~\ .-l-~ 13 ~.\ \ 1 ' \,~
~\ ~I~..J~ \~, j \
ii r, '? \~ \ ~
\, ~\-r --/
~ Q .--,l.-, pl y,: 1,
t ~ I--' r' \i~ \
r \l 0:..- ft 1f
IQ...~/,I~ d 1\;
U~ In \;
lOll l-'" \
~ . I
'\ A \~~ II
\
I
I
~
\ 0 \
\\,
~t
, 6
.\- ~ ~
-\ ~
c:...:~\ ~
'M
~~ ~
,("10 ~
..
qn
\4 "
1\
\\
L~
L-
\
T\\
~. ~
,.--\
.......-
\ c.:: CO '-'" ~. '-'" @ !
-' I
,
:!
, .. -- :!
,
. -'-'---"--
II I i ~. ~
- .
i~ i J
~ ~~ .
I/~ ~
z ~-
0 ~.
F
<.>
~U- w
d]1~ .' lQ
z .{ ; is
F
0 ~
F ", ,
.L ~ ~. w
l oJ
"I . ,
w
1111'1
I'
'lfll ~4
iml ! Ii'
J~! j~l
~iV.I{r.
I
~ I I J J
0\<1< <1<1<1
~~-
'"
o
'"
, -~J ~
w
~
, ,.
. I"
! ~ ffi
~
~ ~
J. "
1/1
I~'
11/
~I
1,/1
r---'
r--", r----
>--,
!I
Ii
~
~ ~
o@ ~~:
..PJ~CiJ I ~:
~r=i:J1!1 & ~~
v-- m~
I II ~~
LL_ i~= Ul
'" (')
l' j , <:(
:1!..I1.1 dl
~
I
1::
ill;
~
.~.
ill
'"
o
~ ,
(j I '" i
~ "</._ I
>- -',...,.. !
is
. F
<.>
J!!
z
o
F
I I I ~
"I
w
'"
_:...,..",.-,",,~, 0
'"
.' I'!
" ~
N
.
,.
I"
z
w
J
'+ ~
! ,. loll
~'IT"
\,:- EJJ~H:'
1 -@
- t+-"'-~
, .[JJ ,t:, ~
II
,'I I
" I I I
I-
I- _1 .
I c.
=~
~~L I ~ tr.
~
)
1-
. '-i-
I ,-'
"~il
!--1
l-' 1---'
, .
~ I
~~-;
..-----<
j -
~_ J-..-""';, ~
j--'
, .
>--.
,
F!lsm.n~~!
iliiJ!i1'!1
~I:~I'!!}
~~I.- !t,!
I if,__
I
liIIlll
N<J<J<J<J
i
~
.':' ",
\~ ~~
~ ~~z:
. ~.
c:'=J~['J! ~:
CJpB , :.
I
i~ !Jli~~ i
: i.. I '
: lIi:!U.!,j I
.j
I...
1I1I~!!l!WJjJ ~ic~I~I!
. I I I l I Ii
I' Illl!! 'II Iii i II II II UlI lllll!.1 I I
i I 11111. 11111 I I. !. _ III ~ "lUll U. I I! I I I I ! I I I I I I I I Iii
! IJL lU!l I l J I II .1 ~ d l I h I~ ~ I! I! I! i -'-.11. 1.L l.HI t L! ! !! . I ! ! I
II 1) crctctcr':U.Jll.d5CDICIl h III [[ h -1~ ! I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~JLl.U ~I~I ~I ~II~I.I ~II~I ~IIJ
I~
:,~!
I' ·
'" I
1
I
I
. I
.. I
- I
I
I
I
~\__i:-
/~~\~ --
~ \\\J-~'o \
// \'\~/~~'
- '~'"
\</:;/ /"
\
,
'o..'
,
;r
'.' \~
\\" \'
\ \
,\
\
" "
.';
\ \.
\
\
\\
\\
.'
\. \
\\
'.
\ \
\\
\
~J
\ '\
,
'.~ \
1\
'\. \
~__I
"
\,\\ \ \ \"\ \
\\ ~".\,..\ "
;> v,y \ "
r/',\ //)..,/" \ \//'"
,\ ~--\ --'--- '
"~><:;;--'J' -"-~~
"--. -:{.---..-
-~-.
'-
'.
\ "--/
\
\
"
\ "
\ \
\, '-
\ ,
\\
\\
'\ /"',
\~- '\
~!\
. .
-. ,
-- '.
'-.......\
/\
l. ')
......
\
',-
\
\
"-.. - ._~-------.
\
\
----
-,
....
\
,'-"
\\
"
"
,\
\\
\\
\\
\
::,
\,
"
"'" '-
,
,
,
.....-.
(..\\
'~J
\\
\\
-........
~ 1 .
...~ _t"--o
ii
"'",
IJdu ~
~ .., ~
11\"'11 "
h d!i f ~ I ~
~
I
~
...J
,
,
-::1
....... :t
..J~
....Iii;
..J~
.J~
J~
J ~
\
) ..
. ,
,
,
\
\-----./
.\.../...--,,)
(//../
/
/
/
,//
I
I
I
I
J-._
~_ __L-._ _ J...-.
J...-: 'J--:. ' _!..-.-:..
L-:... L-:_
, '
"i------<.....
I .
.J----_
-~
\Y ~
. (\ 1sl ~ ~~
CJ L::JD , ~~
CJ"O , ~:
U-- a"
a
t-~'J3H33S:H1tOl""
~- --rr-------J-bJ~r=- ;//
0; f:Cw,p,ijf
1l! ,. ~~f", ~ .
I)
----___--'1
'~
'-
/
I
. ~,
( \/
. ,
\~/
-----
'----
"
.~
,."'-~
'''-...
\---- \
'v/\ '"
\/..-J
/~
I "
'\.----'(\
\ \
'\ \
'\, '.
\ \
'\.....-/
,r\
" i-~'
5\
I .
. .L..-..<-
Ii
I' . . .
IJL- ~
~ t i ~
"'I'I'll ~
Iii 4 J~. i Y I a...
('oJ
I
-'
Iii I
II I I
. . i
:";
~
~
III
~
w
z
~
z
~
".
"
"
C'_;~-,~
, "-.~
\ \
\
"'-1
I
(-", I
\ '
~-\-." I
~
L-.:..._.L...-:. ~ .L...-:.,.._ J
~I~!;~ J
t=I I i!;!I!Wjjj
o
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ (<('
I
I
I
I
<-~
,,- \
<~-
I -'-
\ /, '-')
v /
(\
v'
(\
\ \S\
)
)~ ..L....1.<.L....; ~ .~
') ~ . .... ~
\}. o. - .
'\S ~~~- . J: ! . g <(
CJ 0 ~ ~~ 0' l!.!~__ N
CJpG , ~: ,,1 I 1.; I
~ . t i . ~
~ !II:Ii.I.I,1 ~ I ...J
-L"7 - - - - - - - - '~~
~ .
L-! I_ ~
.. I
." I
,
/ ~
/ ~
~
III
~
!l!
~
is
!l
'-
< ,
(-- '.
, - ,
,,-,r"- \ "
\ ,
\/--'
<',
~""-
<<,
C---" - j
\
.~-
, .
, "
\ r'
\ ~ .,
\...--/ ';.\ \
'\ \
, ,
\ "
,
/
"-.
.
.
.
.
"<
~'----~
/ "--
\...----- ,
"-"'"
........'-.J
.
(~- .
\/~-...., I
%
, "
\
1 . I . I ' ,. ,'"
. J.....--L.... _ ..J......--..L._----.J......-.-- __ _~_ . _ .L...-.--.4- . -'---"--. .___.l...--.L_
~.~..L....1..)
fill):::" j ::lS['J~ 6\~i i !1111! ~ n
I 'l-'" [7)17l1'J ~ h ~ I
." II""!;!!H IIIII -i..J~' , ~:,~ II!.!' 'Ill ~ ' ~
"'" .I<l<l<l<l<l ~ - 'Ii . .I" . .!;;: I --'
l ! ! ! i i \! I 1 II i" I! !
I I 1!11!lllllllI1 Ill! III .1. d Illl,li It!. ! I! I I I I ! illlll: I Iii I
! ,I I !!!! I I I I I I Ii It ~! I 11 1 I! I! I I II I: i .~ ~ I! i I I I I I Ill! ! ! ! ! ! ! _1! !.!
~I 1) Icrma::ra::rltJJCDic!i 11 rIllT !d~*:tJ II ~I~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~I ~IUIU ~11~lllj]EI[j]
rn.l3K33S3Nlltr.Jl'm
\ m -:-----------m-------'~i
\
\
\
\
\:\
\
~ ,8
\ .
)
U~
~~
I
" "
L,
./
~
..
, "
, i
. 'Ill
I ~
, ~
,
.~
~
,
. .~ri~.fJl-. ~
. ~
,
,
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
=
~
..,..
,
,
,
I '
"_ A----oi
z.n~33SBlK)1""
L-J L-1 L-: 1-: . L-l L-: L-: 1...--:
Fi!111.!I1~!~lj <Y ~< ~',;,: "~
,ull!iiJh~ IIII ~~~i~~!.1 ..1:1,:1,,: i
, if II !!!~~ 41<_ <kj<l<J CL LL. J Ih ~ Ii I hI...
1 . III II I Ii I ill! l i Ii !llItH I ! \ ! I" II ,I I I
i 111'111111111 ..! I'll "HIII!!l 11111111111111 ii!
!Ii! II! II I ! II II Ii ,i III 1,lllll!l:! II Ii I'i I I I I I I l!! ! ! ! ! !! I!! I
blJ ~c[rrrm.(DrCDll~. w [[ !i~~1.4k1K~ .i il1lJU ~ ~I ~ ~I ~I ~I &1 ~I iflnrlllHlllll
r-~
<r:
n
I
-'
)
D~
~\
~\
{)
.0
~-
I
,~
'-
'--~
~
I
J ~- ~
c!OO D'
==-==
'r-fil 'i
~
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
'I
11
f1.
J
1
. ~
i ~ 1
~. ;
I/~. ~ ,
I >'~
~..-~ .
Ii ~ i -'-;.
II . I
~\-- t 1 : . /;.. i' 1 ..' ; n;. ;
_~LL!_..Ln-=n-~~ n:nn.L_nn_ _n_ i
_ _L-; L-: L-: L-L _L-: ~'BJ~'m ~ L-.1~ L-~
~ mr
~ ~
,
i
,i ""
I . , .
l------.. _ J-.--.
III' I' "I' J
. I ~~ ;", ,
, ! ~ lmi,IIHIII.I.1
. II :.'" oJ<I<l<J<l<l
~ u
",
.,' ~ ...:..
~~816\~:
COJ."la' ~ ~~
U- a"
II
I'
l!!~-- ~
~ ~,~
m,:Ii..I.I, I ~
~
I
~
j...J
~
i . ilillllll ,I l!~ Ilil'lIllull! . '!,/11!11'1'1
11'11111111111" !i_ill!"'!!)!!!'!"I""!l!!!!!!! Ill!
!tIi I l! II i I II ! i II II ~!U_l. 1!lill~6llli~ I ~ll.l1 I I L !l1L! I iLl..1! !.!
I ill] ,C})l1Cf:r T1CDlQ:l]ICV m II m [I i d4i1nI41~1J III ~ ~ I ~ D 11. if ~ n I[ iIJllLl J lBJ
/
'~
. '-'-
, ,
, .
: !
, ,
, ,
, ,
, .
, ,
lfl ' ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, .
-~.
- "!
Ie
: .~
. I.!
. I. I
----- "1.1
~
--______ ._________. I
--------- ~--- --- ------......~ ~ ~I
___________. ________ I
-. --------- ~
______ .......... I
~........""""'---........I
...... I
.......
I_LJ
. ~.
'-
~ /--::
~= ---
/
--
/
/
----
_/
----
----
----
----
--
----
----
'I
d
--
--
----
----
----
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1--:
-
~"'l,"1I'i''''' L-
_______________________J
I I'
J...~ ._____
1.-:
, ,
J..--,
\.-.i
, ,
1--.
I
-.
L-1
1-:
\
>--.
\Y ~ 11
e, Ill.! <(
.~ ~~.."
c::J . GJ ~ ~~ ~ 'i-
C[JpB · ~: ! I
. t' ~ ~
m iii :!i.I. I. I ~
~ --"-
! I I! I! II II I I ! I! i I I! 1111111 III ! I ! : 1111 ; I II I I
! J 1.-,,111111111111 ill II h ~ d III !! I 11! li ~ 1 ~ ~ I!! LL 111 i!II U L! ! II! ! I
~II 11 Icr::tctmCIGXn][]US /1 m rr" id41,'l'~'LL! ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ULUlJlilL iJUI]
-
-
H~H
Ie
Hl H I I ~
: :
I.
____________. I -
_____________....... . 1
-----------------------..~......I
_____ _________ ---- -........ I
\ \ -............ -..........:-~
l\ ~"-.J
, . 1
"1
I~'j I
\
t<>
:~,.
! !~
, ,--
I i..,.
, ,of'
.41 ! j.....
. .
vi ;;.....
"\ ---/ VI
~ .t.
....
....
\
-
//
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
.-t
.// I ~
",I ~
" I!l!
" ~
....1 ttl
1 :z
1 ~
1 ~
1 ;!
1
1
~
--
~
-
~
')
~
-
~
1
1
1
~
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
] 1 L-!
...~
L-!
.t....-:
J-:
. ,
L--l
-
W'""'j3N1"t''''' L-!
_______________________J
,
J--.
,
-
, .
J.-...--
I .
>-----
l-:
FI"muII'lli"
. 'I. ~::
I ' .,.
.' 1-,1< ;:;
lelll .;'
IItl'J~, j il L€. .
ilui".. .... . I
~. ~. ;::~ ::
.~! I', i!l II"" hi!! II J 1I11
I,.. , ,Ii ,,,., 'N<J<l<J<l
IdL_ ~ u)
L d ~ . l
IIM:l i.I.!.! if I ..J
i . i II I , I, I I . I I! ~ I I I 11111.11" Ij I ! I r I I I ,I I I
: ~ U dill II 111 b I it !l ! III !Il !! 1111 j Ii II 11; Ii i! ~111 : I I III t 11111.. I ! ! I
1,1111 ICf1CLCI:a:1i!r.t[,1.JCDIGJ1111 mmlh " . III ~~I~UI~~II~UlIU,IUI~I]
\9 u
<" ~ ~~:
C0 LZJ8 ~ ~~
CV~B , ~~
~ a'
i
~
t-n.1DlSDS~HOJ.wt
f----------~------ -~;--;r
I ~t~ ~$
I lfl ~ Cf ~ltl ·
i4:111 I n I I I I I ~ IJI" f - .-~Il I I ~
U T I1I1IIII11II 11111.~ ~ - I ,
: \,
I . I
. . III1I I I '~'-----
:~ ~ .,-1----'-- i ~ ~ ~ j :.
: ..' .111 ~ r L - j j
t;;
hj ~
~----------L------------~
. ~
:~!
. t
_ i
o
-, ~I
-1----0
U u ~
I
'-
l : ~ ~ I
. 0-
L ~ : ~ L
1_
o
~
Ii;
li
III
w
~
~
-
~IIIII' -
~0-'1-' ~ ~~' 'i8~
r or ?ii..
,/;\;,~~
- I Ul
_ -~-1-1 rr
=
/
-~
~ ,~ I ~
o
~- =--
c:=" ,--
! r t t ------~
~
I't.
lor
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
__6
~
H~~~~~~
f A:-J /
J....--, 1-, J-i
~ 1----... ~ J--: ~' i--.
I -: :'
J-. }-. ;-
F!I' ,m~'~1
Iila'p'~ I,. i,l
. 1 n! :.~
~al ,.1 i ;, ,
I' = ~ i f =_
~ II, ;;;;_;;.1
~~I~' ii II i::ii III II I I
!IIIlB ,i' ;,;" -1<1<1<1<1<1
w ~ il~,:.
dJ~8~ 6\ ~i .
CVJ7lB' ~ ~~
U-- a"
~ e.
I . <(
!lJIL_ 5 iD
I ~ I
I '" ~ Cl
'Ii 'I' III ~ I' '"";
I ~'.tlli" ~ ~ I 0.. ---J
i . 1111!! 'II fill Ill! !!HUll!. !,IIII,1 I .1
~ I Ill' 1111111 1 I. ! I I' l ,I! I jJ!I U. I i I I I , ! I I f I I I I I I i I I I
~. ill Il III I I I I I I II II ~ dill I !Jlll! Iii: Hill ILL J i i I I III II ! ! !! l!! I
fu 1) G::!C!1CDCLCDICLXCDICDU. ill m11~ . I. ~ ~IJU]J ~ ~II~I UIU UIJilfljJ
9-nJ3HES~nH:llvn
-. --........-....----L------------ e
, ~
]1
:~i
:!
~
iii
III
~
~
~
r-.--------~.----l
I I
~ 1-
; I 1111 Iii I I I I I' I 1- I I "Il I I
~ 111111111111111111.tJ1 ~-. il .
: ~ .
: ..~ .11 I I I I. - '= -T~
I~ ~ -4:- n_~nnn ~ ~L... .
: .; .j.111 [ I Ii; - = i
~ ~ - .
,-.' ~IIII = 'j,.
~-, ~ ~~."'.!IIlr' -
L _ ~L ~" ~~I -
~ 4(0, /~ I I ~ ~ I ~ I IF.
~"""
. . d'
. J .
. .
. ~
~
'~
............
~
o
C)
C)
=
~ -~--tt-
L.
"+ ~ ~
_-,-~Y-
L
I r l
1'1 r
~
/
~
~~
c=:" ,-
it t t ~
~
I-t.
I""
-
I
I
I
I
l ~
.~
......
...2_ I L-: L-: L-: L---:..: ~ ~ L-'
H~H~H
( A::V/
L-: 1-: L-: 1-. I
!lllilIIillhl
. I~! ~::
iIfil.:l, foIl; ,. - I
I~I~I i iii;l~ ~,
il!ii~, i1~II.ll'l~m 1111111
i!IiI iili "''' ,1<l<I<J<l<l
w u . m
. ~ />iJ ~ ~~ J" co
c;] . 8 ~ ~~ tH!__ ~ I
C;JpB , ~: I
: ~ i ~ ~
m~ nl'I'I! ::; , -'
~ Ih ~w Ii II iI I 0... I
. . !
i '1111!i1lll1lj i!J!III1!.l111 lldl'''1 I
i I I I' I I. I I.! i t I , 'III I,ll 11.1, I, !!, I I I i I I I Iii I I I
I iii ! 1ll1lUl II Ill! II I II II i! ldll ! illL! ! Ill: !lilil i!' II I I I Ill! t 11! ! ! ! ! ! i
~! 1U!:rr![1,llISlcr:rVDICV L w lIhls~~ .~ Iii ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~I~ n~1 ~II~I ~I ~I UlJ
Nll33HS33S3NnlCllYW
r-" --~------ u--~;rTryF{Grrr~J ,rT;n.---~-----~--------~ ~
00 ." I -<- ---1 = L ~i
:~'~1- . --"-1 ~ ---"~~ ~ ~ - i
'L/\" . 1 I
W rf11i1l1r11 = -1-:-
(::; .~-.~- -=-
~lt'i ~II~- -----i ~
,
,
o
- ~ "
~ - --0- -
~
I
---:1
-----t
--,
--.l
- ~ij_~ U
~ ,1T
I::;
--1
o
~I~~=--
~ 11~-
~ 1t~ r_
~. ~r.
..
-.--,
B
W
.~
~ ~ -ff-
ESdi=
I~~
ii
o
~
~
: I ..I. .
; ::r-
gl ~ '( ..
~~~= : 1:
r' ftJJJ " 1 I +1l;I-,1; ,
I ,j 1: L
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
".
<>-
ll'd
J 'II Ir-
~
. JO.;
.~.~
/~
--"itIJ~
_ J _ ~ L
<:]
l-
e
-
~
------~--~------------
rNll~.3N1trnVW
t-::-::L LJ L-f L-: L-: LJ LJ L-l L..J LJ L..J LJ LJ L-: I
tJ~"'~III'II"
il:t \';B
Jiil!:I;W ~"
II1U;I'!jl :.11 ' I
::!;th!, BH .:5~
~"'I' 'I' II"!'" 111.11
,.,1;)1' "',, "
~HlI~;I. iHii .,<1<1<1<1<1
\Y u
~~8~ 6'\ 21
G"7~I'I' ~~:
<.J!F~ mr
~
E
j, . ~ <:
u I~ ~ to
lS I
, j. ~ i ,
II :! 1.lud ~ I .J
l I I , I \ I i ~ I 1 .
1'1111 !III Il'l il;!!III.lIII, lllll!.ll I
I I 'I flllll!ll I I. ! I 'I j I II! I jl! !! ! ii I I ! I I I I ! ! I ! I I I I Ii!
idIL!lJ), I ! ! I II. ~l ~~ll~l !!II!!H61~~ I !tL.l1 I I LlllUlLll__L! ! I
~~ 1J .~ct.a:[ct,:D1a::DCDIW h w rr ! I ~.t1.~:t~.1.~t! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.n ~ ~ ~ ~ JlljJj[!U
L-n.13K33S3NIlKliWl
'\'\',----------..."1U'J-~T'1~,.l""l""l""r. ---..---.:J'--------------~ e
, ~';:;::.~'1.~ ~ D ~ . 0 0 '~
d',,~~ .~ __~~~L~ ~ : i
T-- .'
I -f-- . J ,
f-- I
r- -b-.~
----"
,
I
. ~
~-~
C)
+
.1
~
,
" ~
-<r
~
<l
l-
e
-
.t:.
>-
U)
<(
w
-t
~~,
~1~k'''1-
f
1
_L
----1
o
---i I
~
tF-
" " , ~ ~ '
~ -r:-~ r~
~ I P'
~ 11yL
. , .
: ~ It If..:'j
---1 III LI'_ -
I ~- u"
"0 .It.lk: __
.,H '-I'
"" ! - '.
~~ Ill......
'e~ -, 0
U;t~ .~:_-~
Fd;~~ "'" ""
:f<>~':; ----;:'l<
~ \
~ --i
~ ~ .~
-=[> ~ ;!!
:]l~ III " .'r'
.;1:', 1.1 1 Inn" ',"!! i I ,_L, ,
..,. Li4lJ --"tfl"-=
I 1
;
l"
r
?
<I-
~
,iiJ
I
I
I .
5
L_____~__________~__
,
!
1
_L______
~-~
J-J'
-~ ~ n ; r ~ ~
- r-~ r
---~~-~--~------------
I ~ J : I '
J_==:i_ /-; /-..
, .
'--'
L-J L....:
d-'L:F'" L....:
L-;
LJ. L-J
1-.-:
L....:
w u
-n 19~';:~
c.J\..2J8~ ~~
CfJ'-'B , ~:
U-- a-
m
tll
,llL_ ~
.. 0
U5t I" ;;!;
Ih (lJi I~ ~, I ~
FilClllllii" . .
r.;r,J!1 ~! Hi
~J it! ~=i! ~
I . ,,1, :- I
I! ;:1 "';I,H~ ~ II111
i.1fiilI, ifi.. ;!i;; -1<1<1<1<1<1
~ I I'
~ . Iii!! 'il,II!ll IIi 1IIII.IlIl lldl!.! I I
I I '1 'II. II III I . . I I' l I II H lH I I I 'II I I ! I ! I I I I I I I I I I I !
t l:! t !~ 1 i! i, I .~ ~ I II It ~ t II ~ll h II!! ! 11In if ~ I,: I I .LillI! ! t t t! ! !. _ I. ! ! I
IltcD Iluctctcrl1'1Cr,iJIl CD CDll1 ill IT: ! I 4,~.~ III ~I ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 U ~I~I U .JI U U
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
:;
II
~ I
~I~I
i .
I
I .
t
I
I
I
=
C-
-
:8
c-------
=
=
I '
'_=i.-
L-:
I .
>--
1-I. L-l
L-:
l"-
I
,-
, .
j..J
e
:~!
. ,
. I
L-; I
\j L - II
I
NYldll'lOAVlElNlAWd I
I ...::; I
.-:: I
-..::.1 .
-~l ''::; .
_.-.....__ I
- I
- I
I
I
1
~I
I
....,n:>.,...L I
'!IQ'fN!HOlid 1
@\
1& ~~ I
---''''''1
..--.. ~
-_o1ibil
.--_-~
~
---:i5ii1
____I
___illiJl
---~I
-.......-.. {5jjj!
___.il:.olt
___i!l:d,
......._=:c:;kdll
--~
--'*"'1
--~
---4
--~
--"'"1
I --=-1
: ~____ ....,.1
Q)~~
.. - .
~J
1
: J'
-I
1
L!J
1
:J
"'
1
, - : '1
~ .
~J
_ [~Tt I .
-. .-.......- b
. -
- J ~ i'
_J
. J~
~ - -.J ID
, Ji:]
,J
, -I -
';';;:1 .
! ~]
~J'
oJ..-,
I
1
:]
1
1
I. .
:.1
8m
dJ[1
~ ,[;1D ~ = :: ~':t\ ,
-UU I ---- "
: ...:.::: f: '.......
1---- -t1 '.,......
I ---- V, '- '" ",
I ---- 'tfl """
-\ ,""
1,.,~~,,~'7~~:1 ',- '\~" //
I --- 81 ........'" //
I ~-=-:; ~ '.<~"'~"~ /
~ .,~-~'";...::, '<'" ~ ........... '...
=~ : -_:._.~.... .. "'~~~~
=~ I -- Pi ....... .
=<:1 I ---=~~. . .......
_ ...-io \J
."",,-:miE.i:i I ---=A
...;:'.'" I .
:,:= _::::~~ij. I --~~~11
~=.:-~r~"'" --- hil
~;i"~ I --~8
~.. I ="""'S ~ 1
III'.. I -=".51~'-11
I ---181
I ~1'!:.1 ---- --
I ="r\Cl~"''-;;;,^''''''1
____a~
r~'J.33HS33S3N11H:llWll - --
HfP.~~"~' , ,
il.IB I ~! !~I
ill~' "1'
1i!Ir.!11', '.!' , I
~j! 1:1 iUI~l!~ .111111
i!liUl' il . "h, '1<J<1<J<1<J
W u
-II ~ ~~:
c:'0 l2JGJ ~ ~ ~
C:U"'B , ~:
~ me
~
., !
! l! H ~
i ~
~ . ~ -
m.:M.,1,.l,1 ~
~
I
N
..J
. I I II I II I
II! II III I I l I I! II ! Iii II
Ill! I Ill!! ! 1111_ ! II i ! i ilullll: II U j I
i ,I 10' "'101 c,l,NiOlOjI dlrJ 1_"'_ I' . I I ! ! I \ \ I I ! . I , , I
I, 1,'-'l'-'l'--'lUll ,"1VjI~1 I I , I I l , , ! I I ! I I I , I
I
e
:~!
. I
. I
~
.. .~
if "~
'J
~~
Q~
1\.
/ i
I
I
-- I
n --I
~M
0~
-.. _"" I
I
I
I
I
I
\./V
r
-'
----1 .
--.~
--11il
-Jill
-1!ll
-1!l!
=>
-Iii
;l;
~'-......'-..~
~-
I
I
I
.
.........
LJ
r-,
1-.
,
r---"""""~
, '
.--,
>--,
i--.
, .
1---;
, ,
r--.
>--:
,
,-.
i--i.
i--L
, ,
tlflll"f"ll ,,,
~I W;'~
III, ,. -
lu~! il; .Hill,lb :111111
=. 11<" "j" ,I<1<1<1<I<J
\Y ~
. (\ ~ ~ ~~
c:':J LZJ8 ~ ~~
C;] rc-lB , ~ :
U- a"
~,
- .
~ :
~:
.!~
I ~
1!l!L_ ~
I ~
I .. ~
m.:U.lI.!d i.'
N
I
N
, .
I ...J_
a
! I I I II . II
II 'II II II II I II, I I Illl ! I I
!l lUll I! i ! 111 II i IlllllllllllllJ n II I I i
H I o~O:8 :iC1o~ol c:i q I _ I III : : llllllllll : I UL : d I!
t'.'lL3H'...33t.3MlH:>~l'n
--.. --r--------~--~I~-.~----- ;~-:~\~----
n ~,= fJn Ii'l <
( . . 1 /
~ ,!
!J '~~) / <
s::; ~ / I~~//
(~<:::~::J / / /
2::~)~j /
( '<::~~;
/ II'
/
f'J
~
:~!
. .
. I
.
~
Iii
x
o
!iI
~
~
)
.L 1
I
>--.
i
J--,
l.-..-J
L-'
~
l.-..-J L-:
L-:
, .
J--:
l.-..-J
I " , '
J--- J----.;.
L-:
L-:
IIJ:tf,fII"I!,..
~:p'~ I ~. .;;
~,ml.". I
11::11' i iH. ;;
I I'" ~. . . ~.~
I~' !i, IIl;j,~ :111111
~'BDr. if" "'" 'I<l<l<l~
\9 u
. II 1& ~ ~:
c:J ~GJ , ~~
g J:i::lB , ~ :
1.;---- a"
Ii
u:.~
I'
dd ~
~
., ~
III:iIU.l,1 ;.>
n
I
("oJ
--'
~
-)
III 1,lll1!1 !!~lllll II Iii I
ill II I 11111 II II U 6 I I I
,-;--;-1-;-1-;--;- Il'l ,,11-;- I II, 'Ill
1,.lll"ili'IIII" ""!
"'Z;-1.1.331-tSES3NnHJlm -
-- ~----------------------~
e
:~!
. .
- j
\
~
~ \ \
11ft;
C"J1 .
.~ ~
'1'1
!FoI\ la I
""f _ ~
.. A"~
'fo U I: r ,LO.'I
0Y- ---- ill
~O nn ~ m m ~~ ~i
__J__L_n_'n_~ _~~~~~~"'_~~__~~ ._n
I ! 1......-1
.,~. '
~;.
, '
, ,
~
l---J
I '
~
n-llBfS'3NJ'111m
l--1 . i-..-l
l..--!
l---J
l..--: l..--!
FI;l!m~il! ,,i
lillf I U1'"
~-~H' j.W'! L" , I
. L..,: :
ii!ii Il,i H~L~~.
.:1!1~' !d..!~~ii : III1I
i!IllIP. dlil "'" '1<J<J<l<J<l
'09 ~
cdJ~8~ 6\ g1
CVJ;iB' ~ ~~
U-- a~
a
'- .
- '
~:
~:
I[
!JL_ ~
I ...
I .t. ~
lIi:!.U..I.! a
-T
I
N
-"
I I I I .
II! II Iii II! l I ! 'II
I: II III idllll i I llll! i 1111 I
t, - -----y- -- ------
H I o~o:lq ~Id, alai C1 qleli~l I : I I : ! I l :
III I I
II d k ~ II II
Illlllllll
i I
! I
e
:~!
- ,
- I
! t ! g , ! ~ l
I I I I I I , ,
-
I I I
I ", II
JH
.
I
I
I
I
i ~-'.J.."J \
I fb
I ;
.- -- '~
I -,~ !
1--- -- ~~ I'"
, .4l ~~ 11-
LI~
~'"l
. ~ ~.
\
~~
~~
n
~~
?:;P;)
-
-
-
~
Iii
~I
w
w
!l!
"
~
.
-'~I
/~3
.-/ ~
~
, (~~
0) '@1
~
I
I
I
I
I
-----------------------~
:-". 'I .....,l3}HS33S;H1"','..... I ':
_J.-l_ ~ J---~ , , r-- J----i ~r I- i-: J.--l_ J--:
1--: I--i
Hlirn:n!!J'lj'"
.~~ Ii!J ,;1
~Ii<i! ;.. .
.?; :tg i
l8"""11 "" :- L
il~:jiU II"" hili III II II
~"liJ:iid" '''" '1<l<1<l<1<l
\)9 u
cdl ~8 ~ 16'\ g~
CJp"'" ~~~
~
~
, I I I ! I PI" , !
11'1 i III II I l ! .! I I i III i III I'
Ii II III il! ! III i I Ill!! 111111 II i I n Ii I I I
I - - --
\flolo'~ci'Q'OIOjl-:-lrll~1 I" I I I , I \ \ ! I I , I , I I
I !, t. 1.'4 ~l '. l .-1 '-'ll'llll I j I I , I ! , I I I I I I , , I
-- - 9.Z-'l33HS33S~~.lWl
i- _m__m,___ -----~ %m; . i -- --~ -~- -~-I---I---- m
LI I il1 I II I I I I I II 'I ',' "Il ~ ~. 1
~rITIT\1l11-1TTTTTTrl.m €("-_ _~ ':) L '~n
I \ " I ~ II
j. <:.'i,'[ l' II-I':: IUD C-T111
I Iii',:,)) -_-"t~-"Il
"~11111 . " III
~,. ~~~''!!i\r
i '~~~)l
. """,~ '" : l
~ / .~,II~ LU..t~~--
'. ~ s . (0U(~:;;-~J1
~, . li1iH
......... ~~H~ 0 ~-=-
.'~.
~
3
Ii;
ii
!!J
~
~
-,
):
j.~
. I ~
IllHn ~ ~
!.. ~.0J
m,:!i"I.!., ~ I ..J
1
!
I . I'
I /I, II
e
:~!
- ,
. I
c=l
r
~
c::" ,-
~rtt -c..~
~
I~
1-1'
-
H~HH~
IA'J/
1 1 l-- r 1---: L--. ~ l---: 1--.-,1 11 1 ! L__ j L-,! L-: )
...t=d . :;"'-i ::--: 'I--' ~ J---j ~ ~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
..-
II! II III ! I II I I! I I IIII till I I
I! I! III id j III iI ! II i ! i II II dill B Hi I I I I
lr! 101 q,q ~Qolol :ilq~l~ I: l : Ill: ~ ! : : : : : ~ I I : I I l d I I
L :~_jt li ji H:).I.~
--l~------l~T~.1[CJr~tr---~---~--~-----------~
~~: --:0 ~- pJ ~"'" ~ L
'''''~~-r--f- . = '; fll: ~ ---~~ i ~
, - I 7c_J
: - = r=- ~'q ~ t - . i
(~- .=+- ='~)=- D _i--"h-~
~ ~ IU~_
~ n ~
.--
-~
t
g~
"~- !
;
I
.
.
<>-
<>-
~
~~IUllll
~H ij
;~ , ~~
~
"--...---
\Y ~ i
". I~-- 1
.~ /il~~" co
G . GJ , ~~ I
C[]pB , ~~ I i N
. ..
~" 1Ii.:l U.l, I ~ . -'
n I
e
:~!
. ,
. I
=. :)
_"
<0
J0-
e
-
6ft.
~)
o
- ~ \)L
~ TlI ~ i
r
I
o
- I ~ ~ n
~ -ii-~ r!-
<>-
~tl ~
~ I-Y-
~
_1-_ I. L-i L-i .L-iL-i.L-i I'lBlSl--l'Ol"'J
, ;
'--
L-i k-:
--
::%L
~--
'I~~\
I~~
j I flJ 1
_I_~ ___.L.______________
I I
DOC)
~ DO oQ
I' .
\ g .~~~ '!h'
c g~~~ "
.--,,~~ ~l
>oJ I.. III f) If
---- . 11>
-------- _~t L1.
rz-'lB-IS3;JS~H:ll'ffl
1--: 1---1 I---! . I---l 1---1 J-:...l 1---; 1---; 1---; 1---; J--: 1---; )
fillml>! ~(1 1il ~~~
mi" iil ; ,. . I c;J \.2J['J I :;~
If!ji.i!~ll! :WJJJJ COPFJ' ~~
-- fl~ll~ll-l, I l-l-TI;;Tfl;~ I ! I
! i II III i!! I III I I III i I i II II 1111 dB ! I
,. --- --,- -- --- ----- -
q I a' n"~ -c1.""'i drJ 21. c-./ 1.-lI"'. , , I I I I I 1 1 I I , , I , I I
I., 1'1~l~ll~ l-' ''1!'''lf'''lIl..!.-'- I I 1-'-.!.!~.!...l..!..J..1 , I
i1
I I
I J I
I I
-
1'1
I II, "
.
I
I
I
~
C-
.Ld I---l
, .
II!L_ ~ ~.
! d i ("oJ
m:Ii.I..l, I ~ i -j
e
:~!
. .
_ I
l!I~lI'fIU 11'\1 . ,
:I:m I'.:
ili~ I ~! H,
Iimt: "!I i L _
I. .... . I
I! ,j,,:! ijH ,J~j '111111
~iOl~ I .. '''" ,
CllIlr.1 il ;;1;; .I<l<l<l<l<l
--
l/
_L' L....:
---r
.
!
13:
:Q
:.....
~5~
..~
~" ..
~...
.
.
~[5
~ ~i
o
w
. -""IU~'1~-[;" ~
0.
1-7'
';~--~I ~ ~
181
L....:. I--l
I--l. L....:
L....:
\:V u
L5~8~ 16\ gi
C:V~B' ~~:
v- 0"
A
i
Ill.! ~ 'I
I ol n
I . t ~
lU:U,.!.ld A i -.l.
III s>
Illr
L-:
L-:
, .
1--,
\
>--,
I..--i
o
w
(/)
<
0.,
I-~
(/)"
<'"
w:-
B
I--l
I--l
tI~'OO~I"1 . ~
1:1 , ~,;;'
. I ~,w
~1il!i""1
q~! i11 ii!i!:!l!lllllll
i!IiIlF. H a,.", .1<1<1<1<1<1
MI~ ,.
:1f;111
mil II
m;~!i
!!G!:i
'j'
EJj)1:i
I 11'1'
I' 1111
1I !"I
i I ;~~
l!~
I' III "I, "
,lti '11!i~l, i, iil ii~l.
1"1,1.'11111,' i,rill
"hl!IIII'!~;ld!I!,lih
l!I!H:l!lill!lli II~ II l'
!liI,IMMlil!!, !.Ill!, I ,
5 .. ~ ~
Iii ~ 1 I
I1III I I
", . I
! III ~ I' i !
i 'il! 'lj! i
J--:
;-;-
I p'~ ~!! ill I I I' I
111'1:1 1l1:'I!. i i~l! ,
!i,!iji:::i!l'IHtl! Illi Il
!!lhilili!"'j:'l'! ,!Iill!
lllilli;I!iI! II, 11M!! !
ill":lIill!iI1
I "111dll
,i:1I1 !liili.d -~,
\Y u
cdJ~8~ ts\ ~1
CV"'B' ~~:
~ a~
~
I' .I!l 11'II'III! ,I- 'I
dtl 11!:,li"'IIII.,!!/!,
I "I 'j"'l ill !:' ,. ! I
'Ih II ill !iHI' dliP!~1 I!
lhh'I:III,i~l!i!'1! '!'I'II! !'II
",'I! I, hi' I I! II' i
III, ,11'" l.l., .1., h I
".~
!I 'I'! I Ii', I, I ,I i .,',I! ilh III!I
1'11'1'1111 : ,!;, II I il' !EJj)!hl,.I!~1 '1:1'!I.
111 l - i'<,.Jt( I! I--! -ali!stl
!:!ili~i11i11!1;l!qll it ill '1!1l 11l!!lli !IIUp
!lhll:!!1 ill ,d!il!!! I 1:1 d! IIIU ,ill IIIII!
M I:!l!!l !lIlihll,U!l il. il: Ii III hili Ill!!!!
~~~I
I ~. J
! ~:: !
I '
~i
1-:
1-:
,\ I .
! I; !I I.!
i II' II II !l
i! l'Jj-I" I'
.!,,..-.. I' ,I
I'loo. .11"
~ ."
~ i t.'~t/l
= n
~
l .
'1'1,1
" ii'
hi !I)
11'lil!
! iJ! II,;
1_, 'lli .llll
, 1"11
l! li., dl.
1-' 1-:
, ,
J-i
, '
i-I
J
I
! I! I! ~
! !
. ..
lU:U.I!.!,!
I
U)
-"
. ,i!II!~! !'d.llild ~: i l
li"I!1 1111 'III ~l j! I
I:l!d ili!!i!!ill M~I!11
!I"l~ll II il ,I I'i
!lllli!: l~ lllli !I II i~h'
'l,!1 II '11111 ill!llll,
!,II: ii!lb'lll illi~; C'
iill: llli~hllilliiililll !
l!! l!l:b !l: ~ Ililll'li ililll! 'I
ill! 1i:1 !:hll.! !!lllll! P.l
~~...
.
t---l
1-:
1-:
1-:
flllIlilli"l!l'!
!lOr.!! I U: '"
It "1'
all<.u!; I
;In:::! ii1iW"lhll 1 1111
:il-::t :.,......
C '" ;,;ii -1<1<1<1<1<1
., I" " ,i"
! I! I I' Ii I! '~;i
I Iql,l IIi Ii hI 11'1
! I'd! ! I' IMI
ill'lill !: i' 1~111
111111111 1l11, i!I,!ll
I L.--J " ;;
P i
Iii! i !
ji!1I : I
i!ill! I :
I
i'
!I
'I
h
III
~
t!h I
lilt ~ I
illl I:
I.
i'
II
'I
b
III
1
_ ,__::.J
, ,
J---;
~I 1-1 .1-: 1-1 1-: ~: 1-;
}-:
~~ 1& I' ..~ ;! ~ ~l
! I! I I' I, I! '! ~
!1i'1,1 II Ii hIli
II '. I I. I' I~ I-I
iI" Iii' !:,' 1'.111
111111111 II III I!!! ~!
~I)>/< ";;
it.t~r
~ ~
, . ~.
'? ~ ",_ -, ' n,ff:: -4( ..
<t4HV,{.~'~
~"-./
.
~
~
<
.
~ I
H L.
hi! I:
I
I'
I!
'I
b
III
~
~
~
.
~.,
~i
.
1
~
i
~
.
.
I
'!Il
III'
lilf
I
i'
!l
-I
I!
III
.
~
~
.
~
.
.+ '.
,
1
ry u
dJ\S[')~ B\ g~
C;]f-;-]B' ~ ~ ~
Lr- ~"
~
.
~
o
o
~
<
,
i
~
z
~
~
Ill'
i'l
Ill' i
ii I !,
,I I'
I:ll I:
1
.
<
5
i
~
@
<
,
o
i ~
0>
G
I
Ij!
I I
l"~
~
I
~
I
.,
.
II
-,
b
III
I
I'
!!
,I
b
III
,...
J
J
JL_ ~
ll>~
. ,/;. ~:it
11.::11.1.1. ! ~ 1i
I'
II
,.
,II
J,
I"
1111
l'J
1
U)
-
1--'
. ,
II! ,! ~
Ii! ini!I'1
II' Is!l
iJ 1!ll!!!
m.,: I',
t t + +
.
~
I
I
,
IlJ
I! I i
II ~ I
1m i:
.
~
~
<
<,
~
~--
.
<
!
~
~
i
~
~
~ [
o
I
I
II i
I ! I
i, ~ I:
~:
, .
r---;
1
I
i'
!I
'I
b
III
1
l--:
,
I'
!l
'I
I.
.1
III
<
~
.
,
~
~
~
~
~
z
~
f!
o
.
~
~
<
,
~
i
~
<
<
:d
td
o
J-:
,
g;
, ! ~ f,
I! II
11,1111
!l~!i'l-
IIdJl .1
~.~
i!
.
.
.
~
~!
00'
0'
.
, ,
I
il! I i!i. III i' I I~' i !
III !II ~ !lll; 1M III I: ~ i
I!i! i :'/111 i I!!! nl~i I!! rl!:
!I;l ! Iii III ! 1111 111'1 liil ili =
!m~~".1
II ~\.
'~.
'1'1 / '.
'I"i ,~:~ r':
I, I. J .
<II \ .
bIll ",... "
: : - 'I.
19 u
dJ~0~ YS\ g~
CfJ/7lB' ~ ~~
u--- a "
~
~
.
~
I
:
.
.
.
o
.
o
~
il!ll, II{ i. I~' i '1
!ll,! . 1!11 Pill,; ill~11111 It
! Ill'" 'I l,lr'll III
II l'I!: II~~ "Iii "11 ,I' ~
ihll.!!, ,Ii II 1111. 1Il~
!.,\\\1 i
U:~~. i
'I" ,t?;,,/,; ~
!.!, './ ~ 0)
i.'i
,
,
!3
IJ~__ ~
i I
I . I
ml:li.I.I"
'"
I
U)
...J
L
,
il! 11'1 I 1'1/:: I. I
II! i,I.II,' II, III' II
II' ,I 'i 'I 'I
1!I'dl~ii II! III II,
i' I ,"I" II'. NIII, ~
il'lllul I, II,!! ~
ll~r
!I!I. U€ n~/ /~~
"Ill (.~;,,/ i j
llnll /' ~
~ : ~ ,I.
I' , I! Ii l ,
, ! ! II I I I I I ! I
'I i t! '., J
, f I' i I "1 ' f pil i II' ' :
! ! 'll Ii' ! 'II '. -Ii II I ! ' I
I IllfIH IIIII.~,..: I 'I~ ill I
!I II:! 1'1 :flll:r~ j'l', - . Ill' ; II dill!. .
!lfMU 'II W 1',1 i ... him
II lillli(J :. !:~OI.~ ! 1101l! ' .~
~ ~ ili ~: ~
~c \ '.J ~
-. . ~
ffi ffi ~}.
. . .
. < ~
. .
i i :
i < ~
~
1.. L . . ~
~ ! ~ ! ~
-I), ~
. . = . 8 .
~ .
., .,
0 . 0
, .
J--: - r: -1: n r-:- -1:. ;-r-- r: -
.!iI !II g: ,
II tlllllt'll! I.
I! ,Hi: I ~IIHll
11 fil, ~: illh illl
!'lill I" I
! 1,11lI!!
\
r-----<
, .
: J
!
"
J
~
~ 1
. ,
Ii
@
Ii! !Ill I
1,llll dli'l
jili llil i Ilil! I ill
II!I!!! !.~Il!I" J L
Illl.
"*~., ". '.
"'I""~I' ~
. 'I> . j
N . !
I i
fJf:ll~ iil'li;!
iiJ~; I ~~ :::
~!I'i!u" I
~~! I~ i h!!UjjJjj
\Y ~
cd! \SC'l ~ 6\ g~
g~r:J' ~~~
U-- a"
~
~--..,
--' ,
ij
~
IJL_ ~ T
I .. ~ Ul
'" I' c
,I :"I..I.I.! ~ -'
.! h I II!: ,
11Il'! lllillll
I! Ii!il~ I ,! lI! ji 'I
Il'/Iilll: illh"l.
ii:m:h I
I
I
.
o
,
!
" ~
<,
~;
.'
~ i
@
Fil"iilll:"
'I:~I W :'~
imlI~1 II' !." , I
'f-":: W
",I.'.;'" .,
1 l' _.1'_:...:
I,W, !tl:II!;i!~ IIII1II
CII1lI, ,l,~ ".., .I<I<l<1<l<1
,
. I !
!ii!.!1
III I d:
';> II!,
L.. ~ I
[L\\ \ .'
,~
l
~
II ' I.
/..1,1,11 !
il-l';,I'1 ,all' I
jlh!III'I'I'I,I'j! !
'1Il11 II . I !!
I
\ l"
f l '.
"-.1
,,1;-.1 ..-.,'
,-,
tl
nI
h'j
pll
:111
I
I
~ '
~
i
<
z
<
.
l
:
,
~
. 0
.
o
<
i ~
:.
-'-<-....-J.,,-.. 0
-~-
.,
!
z
o
~
o
.
.
~
~
tt~ ~
,.li 8
~ ~
z'
e
oLd 1---l
, !. I
: ~ ~ H: i i
I II!! illiHi.
I i II'H::!l:11j!!
all I !!llldlllhl!1 ~
\ - ~
,
.
,
~
o
\ ~
. .
o
<
.,
~ ;
: '
\Y ~
dJ~8~ i6\ 2~
g~B' ~~~
u--- ~ .
~
'--;T
, ~
!
N
I .
id:l I !
II i Ii 'all :'!';'
nlli HI~Jh;~1 i
I
,
~Ilt
~ ~
, -
~
-
~
,
" !;!
. ,
, ~
.
l
, =
,
I
, =
.
,
e
.
~"
~
l---: 1--1 1--: 1--: 1--; 1--;
1 .
~.
J;
-'
j,;1
II:
-.-J
'II
~~j~
~
'Ii
hi~
~
<
>
~
.
.
.
.
<
IIn:a ~
, ~
_.--J :
. ,
;~
0)
'II
eU!
~
.
1111
~
..-;. .....
N
-'
-,
, ' ~
I!!~-- ~
! z
~ /:: i :;;:
II"" II ~
~ ,llil .1. I 1'(
Ul
I
en
--'
, ,
I " ! !
I,.! ! I' i '
II': d II aj,' I
!1l'''1 'I d
j! I"'! II!j'l
I" III ! ., !
I . l ,
I, II :'1., I
;!. , I Ii i I. ! I
ill!ll,hlllii
ill
-0'
o
lima
~ z
...;-- II, ~
<
, >
l -.-J ~
,I,
, ~!I .
; ~ ~ ~
,II z
, "
, _.Jll .
, ~
, . ~
, \!!Ii
"1 N '''-.1 " ,
n ..
. ,
~
1-: 1--: 1--:
) '
-i
1
}--,
I!ICll:ll~I'II' ,..
!:lr.ff I ~: ,;,
~Ii:li'"
" dB =.
I 1 I !i jii;, ;j, I
il~' !illlj~id I11I1
I:llII i il~ .B" .I<l<l<l<l<l
_~_! L-'
1 ' \ '
~ ~
p,
d!
Ii!
\\
-!~
l I
_...Jt-;
J
i' -
'I! ,I
l!.I!! ~
I!: h n ~
\~ I
N
."-"
, I
i---, J-----,;
.
o
~
-- ~
.
.
31
C:b
&' u i:
c. !JL_ "1
. ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ co
c:;] . 8 ~ ~~ 0 I
~pB' ~: IdS If)
a> 11I1:11.11.1.1 ~ . -'
~ I
'1
!
1-: L-'
II!
II"
iJ
l!
~-J1-.' ~s
."J>
did
I!'ol,p!, E.
, II ,
II \f' !
9
. ,
-.
.
~
<
.
C
~!
..
:is-
I I
I III
HH
d I ~
:~' (j II I1II II: I ~
g l:t:~
I11111 : -1 ~!
~
C:J
o
.c-.
.o-,z,
J.--: 1--: 1--:
1-:
I -
,--.
HI:l!iRli"j"
ili!'~l ~! H!
."1'
n '.11 ,
I".j "!" ;, I
\ t. , b..-_ ,
IlRf.' !i'aj;~ii .111111
1:!HI,1.1' ",.. .1<1<]<]<1<1
\--.
/
/
:-J
l- __;' ,i.J
,
"~,___n"~
i
~
, '
,. ~
5~' "
-',-1,. , ,-r;Jt
I" .
;.J:.'.....J-~ ..............,
-----'-----'- ---~--~',- ~ -
! Jf' . I t rl
I, I'! Jill' ~
H! I I !. i
{N i I I, ~H :
I It I . ~ II ~ !
HI: t I ,- iP .
"lhl ! I t I'! II
k H.:: . . ; 1; ~
! jll it If t l~ ! t II t
f If i] n or .! - I
, Mi 1I ill l t H j1 ~
1 ~Il i! ~il fll l:l! III i
I I\j ~ it ill ti! ~ ; Ui I
Htd lul,llllllflJ fl, i Uilt I
I tP ~ II. I I kU I J It' '
1 if i ~ p1ltfr' . I ll' H
If ' If .hllll, 1 l t ',il I'
III · till U r ! hll t!
: d I II Illt~ I I. t ! 'lll Ij
Hfi t IH,! I h II ~l i. !lll !:
,till I '~Il:!I. II Z! 11'~' !!
\' il! I I, .1~1!%:1! r" ,1,1.11 I
lIra} lOll"~ 'jk \!' f "'"1' 1!
.il!'1 .1. ., 1 !.i1ltr ! ,." I
~ 'jt ~ lll',!jl ~ f r " 0\-
21f1,11: f211 Hil! lfti !hll!\ ~l~!
ti'l I Ih~IIi-l' 11 I I 'I Hf
~lll'\ U n!fllri~iIlf H ! }II! !'l
:il,lh 1i'llbl!iillllr~llf"M fll
'___" r--: r-' ',-'
W
c6~8'
CJ[?B
~
~
.!
~
~ ill! i
~;I .
5~ . " Ii:
I?~ :!,!.ll,ll.!!il
~
~~:
x'
~,
.
:0:,
O'
~>
~
o
1
o
.
j--'
V~1
----_..~\~
,:-/
~ 1,
I l,h
.lll,!j'
~ MIllI
~!lllM
"-iff!~lml~nl!UI ~l' .
I ~1l!ll~~1 ~ ~Jlj _
~ 2- -'-- --L -'-- -'.....!.... -'-- -'
I 1
! II --.- C . .. 1.1 'II ' Ii' . ' . ' . 'II 1.1
L h II I !i II I Ii I ~I!d I I I . I ,.
I I II! III I ! II ! i ill I!
L lllLLlIl! I II I I I II I i lilli!";'l
11'111 I I III dlilPl!i
! I I " III III i ,II iln i.II!!lll
j i",,,,, 1,_ Illl j d I I
'-II III II II I III I
- I : ., . . I :- ," I 1'1' I II II II I II I!! 1;1;1;1 ~i ;d;~
11'11111 lll!l-lf--~ 11111111
_ L lllLll II. 11 t I ,'!"!I,'!1 I II d I Il!l"! !;t~ ;II,II
l I ,II ~ _--'-~~Hf!LIlll/iHj
, I I I III I I t I I ~ I! II i I I II\;! . : I
III ,~'I ,I: 1111 ~ llld~llll! ~lJ ~lllfi~ 11\11111 !
~ I, -'It,~11 I I :: I I I! :. Vl,1 t I [1", I I j 3 II ~ ~ ~I m il
r-' r-' r-' ,.--, r--' r-t,---r ---.-,----
FilllHi J
. !d~ L
I i:. ~ :~
,......i,!;jlllllll
it mi~ ,i<j<J<]<J<]
\Y ~ i I!
. ~ ~ ~ ~l Ii J~__ ~
c;J . 8 ~ ~~ ~;t ~ I
CVpB , ~~ 5~ I .. i .
a" ~il :lll..I.l. I ~ I -"
~
i II I ! j i I ! i. ! I , I
I l'lllll! I' ~ l,ll! I, I I I I I
!IIMi ,till hll~h !IILL!.! ! 1
~l~h [) ~!Ji:1J Ii UU1~lIJiJ
..1.. 1L' , ,
I ~,
-- _:~ -------- ---~--~----------
rnl.BfS33S3MllOl'm
~--~----------------------,e
:~!
. l
. i
)
I
v " '7
r'
:~[j"~"'d' =-= N
---'
. fTTTj;
=-=c~ ~
!
Ii
I :ll
I :::
I ~
Ii
I !i
I
~
'1
. 0
~- _.~-
_________J
~_J L...: L...: L-I L.J 1--1 ~~"" L...: . 1--1 L.J L.J L...: L...:
111'1_' I
. in
.- I : '"
'. .
= Ii! ~ ~ ~= j
~ . . .-'" H~~ 1111111
il ,ll,' <I<I<1<l<1<l
i II I I ~ I i II. II I I I
I '111111 II :1)1! I, 11'1 I
~!11l11 ~d.l ~d~~ !!illl ttl
t I let J: [ II III f I -< II ~ ~ if ~ ID ~.
\Y w ..... ~
D. .'
. ~ ~ ~ .. ): ~ Jd__ <1:
c;] e 0 ~ ~~ .' ~~ ~ ~
r I
CJpr:J , ~= 5~ t .. ~ . ~
Q" ~~ :1,1,11,1,1 :s I
~ u;:" ---'
)
r~1l33HS33S3NI1H:Jl'ffl
~--~----------------------,e
]1
~i
00
~
"
I
" "
~
~
I Iii
I ~
I ~
I ~
I i'i
I ;;
-~
~:
~\
~\
'-----.J
:~D'~"Ej' -~- ~
~ ~-
!_~!
1ft:;- I
.b0 OJ ~~
. 'i!J
lilt , I
~.I
I!
I
\ ,.c/
------------_._-~----
________J
,
~~/'~
..iL --
. ....." .
= .
~ :oL :
__ __~L________
,
~
LJ
LJ
.LJ
LJ. L...:
I ~111-'3Nl'f':" LJ
LJ
LJ.
. L.J .L-l
LJ
Fllli-' 'J ....
f i.;j
. I .: ~ i.
.I! i. .
, '~' i Illl! ~JJJJ
I I I 11,1, I
I' ! Iii 1111 H'! I
,L-!l-----~- -
~ ,! I,r..!! i I I I i I I I
~1.il:::3 I I ~ r r I ~ l
I
~--
I
\:Y ~ '"j 15 11111
0< .' l(
. ~ ~ ~ <. ) ~ ~
~ . 8, ~~ -' ~~ I
,,! I ~
C{)pr=J , ~: 5~ , ., z ('J
a" ~ill :Id.l" ~ ...J
~ ~~
. 00 I ~ . \ lJidd' /.
~t.l--______~ _ __ _m__ ____ .__':L
_d. l...--!-' l--1, l--l l...--!. l--l .I n-lJI J3N1"l !...--! . l--' l--LJ--l. J..--1
e
.~
. .
:;ji
.-z-1133HS33S3N1li.lJ.W( .~i
~i-~----------------------~
" .
~bfIQ
.
:i
I Iii
I"
1m
I~
I~
I~
I
.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G
:~D'~"'d' =--= ~
nT[l ,
~.~-,
..
.
I
~
mA"1
I
I
I
--------...
.l--' J
Fii!,~!!'l \
Ii 'd '.j, ' L
~w. iiUmil:!!ld IIII1
_ 11m. ..!" .<1<1<1<1<1<1
--- -
l II 111I
II I I illlllll i
1-
l,llo.,!!Li :11 i: 1111
\V u ..... 1\
.~ /sl~~: ) ~ JL_ ~ <(
cJ . 8 ~ ~~ j ~" ~
C{]pB , ~~ ~~ . I i \
a~ ~~ :!t 1.1, I ~ N
~ ~~ -1
--
e
.~
' ,
';Ji
H.1.1BfS33S3N1lHOlWll .~i
-\;----------------------~
I
,
I
-)
_J
.--,- -c,- ~
! ~
J \
g :~D~...d' =-=- ~
, =-=
crT .-
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~;~
@}l :;11
'~oOlr li ' -
,\\0/:- \ //
_nL__L________ u__________-- -~-- --------"
.____ L--L J--I: l....--1 l...-l L---: I n-lj p3M1f!., l--l !-1 l--l ~ L-1 !-1 - - .l--:
fI'
'Il .""
" ...
IIr iii
"ldi !, I
,'" !,j~j ~ II II
.'"" .i<J<l<<l<I
,I'i I' II It~ I I .1
lll!l!~!ll. ir~ll! li 11
1'1 li,lf. d u 1'~!:llh I:,
,Iii IIlll: 11!IUI,ill N
M Ilull!! I libll.ll, Iii
,
~__.J..
.I--J 1-:1--'
1
I
EIDII!, .
l ll~!, '
Ii '!!!!.J.d. f
il~':J
II II I'
l ;
! !! ill!
I Ihl'I,'
'I"!'
I I Ii ,Igi
I I., I
I! lill.I,I,
~ ;j ~" II
It II...I!,
W u
d)~8~ 6\g~
CfJr.JB' ~ ~~
U- a'
a
II
i I': :11 III Ill' I
111'1:111:11 'i'l' Ii
H!!/il!::!:lii": ,iii II
!!lili!i:i~l/i!III!ll!W
"hlmi!i!! II! I! Mil
!--:
, ,
1---;
1--1 1----:. _1--;
!--'
. '
, I
~,
.
~
Ii Ill! g ~
~~ ---- a 1
5~ ., ~ . L[)
~Il :liJ.I.l 2 I .-J
,
qll~' '1111 ,I d I
1':!'He iili !lli f: Ii l I
:ll,t~ i illi!,ill. Ii
!1':llt Iltl1ll1d I
!illll~llil!hll!11I
1--;
!--:)
I
_ ,r----".
\Y u t' 1\
c< ~ J~__ ~
. IS ~ ~ ~- 0J
G . 8 ~ :~ ~<! I
CO/? . z, 51 i 1iJe} LD
. . ~~ '1' . ~< . --'
~ u;. , "w ,I"J,I.I \ij I
d!ll' , -, ' " dllli I Ii! Ii . .
I i! ~!;i r Ii! I .
I !. I'! .' !I
jlilql Ill! hll, II Iii , II ! i!I~1
.
II i ! :! II !fi~1 il !! Ii I! IU l~!lj
iI" !III ': 'i '! ~l ,11/ I II' !HI II'
111111111 II II it 'I 'I I!!,~!
1l111!".! lir
II..J :x ? \ nri1 ?
? :~
, , :~
...+"" -t- ..+-- -t- --+--
I till !.
, i II I'
I! i !l Hi i !l
I -I Ill' ' . -I
. 1'1 d
I ; ! ~I i! II <
I!!! ~ i!li t
I: I: !. A
~ll ~ ill ~
< ~
. .
. .
~ ~
.
!; ~
~ z
< ~ ,
. ~--
M li:t
.0
~
1 1
,
."=
, ,
J-:
)-1
.J..-:. .1-1
1-;. 1-:
L----:. ___1-;
, '
.J-I
1-; L-l
, ,
j--,
,
.-:
111"11"
J I ~ ~!
I ~: '"
'f. .
. ,. - I
!i 11;.imi~!!H III J I
I!!JR Hi" >KI<l<I<l<I
;
ll!l, :1
! ,'I '
II! '1111 .
!Idi' - - .
Ihllli!" .
~..
1-9'.r; ~
!
.
i
~ t
o
'11 iili, hi: I'i Ii' i I
11'1 \l11~ 'II! 1 lliil Iii I , 1!li I
!'.j Ii. 11111"11 II!
lllll! 'n', 'I I I ~
ii.:!l,lllllrm illbli!lllii
~....I
~~ \~ ~l
w ~
"" 1\l ~~:
C0 LTI8 ~ ~~
CV,.-;--]I'] , ~ :
u----- . "
.
II .I!
JL_ ~ '7
1%
.. i ;;r:~ L0
f .. ~. .-I
,I,l..!.}, I t I '
, I II I
l' 1 , ~ I l"ldll,~,
dill II ,1'1~1 , :ll! 1i~11
11l!~llhl~ \lIh !i~.:;.
\
2
<
, . ~~~
. i
,
~ ,
< ,-.' .
~ :iI.j [y"', .
~ ". , ~
...J . !
" I t
2r t r
@ 0
~
~ ,
0i>
'I! L I I I, I!' I
'Ii m"i!llll'!lpj:! I
llil!l,i'll,ll! !1111!ill!"I'lh
ill!l.ill 61 II II. .Ii
I!~r
1,,'1 ' ',' ^, .
'I I . \/ ';
'~., \'-~ > ~.~tl
II'll
! ll/' 'II II
,il, III 'I
111111 ;
~,/
"
<
~
o
~
2
2
!
, a
~~
~
~
o
=<
o
.
~
"
.
"
<
~
.
t
~
PC-I
I Illd I "
I I ~. II ' , I
I I j JIIIi in
II i.I,'lbl: I~' ) _
".....~ ~ =
VI\I' "~
- m" ~,ct' ~
1-' . ~
= -t--,(:t"- ~
;.
~<'
.,
.
G'
111'11"1'1
"jl','l"j
i -, II!'
~ -,Ii 1: ~r-: ~
r;
r; ,:-1 - Fl. r; r
~
, .
L
,
;11 II.! I I~ Iii ij I
II! ip!!' II ~II!I
!Il ~ti! i III II, II
li,:I;ii!1 llllli!llli
! \ \.'1
II ,~,\I'.
~IGI '~ ~(,~T
!+ II~)~
~ ~
! ,: l, ;
I ! ' I
II, I I' ,
il!!iil...L
19L.111,3 .
II
u
II
II
i
~
l
E
h
o
f
<~
r--r '~
~.
,
. .'
Ii
i
i :.! ~I
!dl! ~i Ii, i i
l'I'kj-,YJ
~
~~ ~~
o
~ 8 -,"a ~
;: . .
: J :} J
~'~: }~r~L"~J~~~,f,~.;~~~?:~ <!;;~~~ 1~~~~
r"~J -I~^,: 1 i ',~,
-: h' lild{\'JI jl i,
,I, i i'~ n\)I:lC _Jrl J
f !! II II II!
I .. -. - -~--
i H 88&8 n!l B
I II !Ill! II
----------
~ ! II I II I!! II
----------
c
~
c
z
~ ! llqn
~ 111!!P
c
I I lillnl
I HUHI
----------
i
I ~~~~~nin
----------
:m -
co
c
o!lil
ll!-
I
r d; '- IJf= .,:;..
~\t' ~f1~~D
,\1, .
~..6 .
c,
f
L
~
--'
""1
~
o
;;!; <=!
c)z ..-.
;;!;:'S .......
3="- -J
~~ ! <(
!O~ !
)
~~
-~ ~
r", ,~
~<
I!
,
Uil II
I:... II I ,
HiH ~I ! i i I
~I--j~-}-' ,j<1
:!l j!
I,' '11
Iii fl..
, ll!!i III
1"111'1"""
"I :'l i' ! 'n;,.,:':
I ,1I1'1'11' '
,11'1: ,I .11';,
ITltU 'W ."J
j :l:hllllllll ."",' " .
I ~PII.I h,'
1;I!!I!!.d..,l
iu, ,II III,
! II Jl
" 8'
'" ,It
III II
,llllilP!
i I If! It Hilt
II,lIlll'l"
I HI! ~t II
1111'111'11111
i Ili,lII: ,II,
Illlilll!ulUn
in, ,II III,
" ,.F5
",--Jj~1
.'~ DIi~ I
. . ~ .. ~PJ
IiI pl.
III ,i'i'l
III! I'lL!! i:l iii jl.l,iI,lilll'I!:i!;; ;;1 l:ii;1 "
I t HI ," Iii l ," 11 . :r:. I.
llj :lr111i! ~ 1I"ld:"'illl,IIWli!"II! i Iii I:II!!: II
~ l I ,I .. 111 II II It, ~Il .1 '
I Ii! il:fll, I ~Ii!iililiii!,'!il !ii!!I:!,!.!,l!il!!!:: ~!
111.I,u II t.1~' ")wI
I I ','l'II, I ""'IL . .
11'1 , ., I....,'
il:llf/lh!!IJ 1,4, 1:1 ." iii,
ill,!, ,I,
!;: t! I
1'11"11
~ t .~.
''';11''1
I'hl']
,IIIJIIH
i "I'" ,"I
1"111,
I ""1'1"
.11 ll,
II" d,jl,
h~1 W'n
11"'1 ~i1h
(w ,Jjh,
i!f I ,Ii II,
Jr,
. ---,-.
I" ,'I( I
ill."
llillPll'
, "i I,! "II
II" ,'11 .
'.111"1' 'I
j! i lilI I!I,
'ii'II',IIP.1
111111'111'11:1/
1I1~1'11~l!I,I!I'
1I1:!Iliii!r.llhn
.i!f, dl Ii II.
(' I
J
Ii
l )
Zli!(t, V_N~D-,l i>:",' ;: '.eN'" Si
,1~\ .:.II'~ ~JJ<:Il:; J<..JO:i I~Jr[JS (,>',
".1 >:'llf':\v ~ ,:N n N.I'\~l! <:! nl,H.,
V :!',:'':.H'{], \~,
l."l!~illlf"I' '1'
,U V '1 nUu I ir:l
II
I.
II
!
!I!
'II'
.' j: ;''''','. '!ii'I'
Ilr ,,' I'"
i. 111i~lillld. .~
IUl :~ .;~
;I'll::~ ".,i.
II ,~! I 1 "
t; i:' Ii 1);III:i jl . i1l ,..dI
li;hnl j I ~:i!I!!i1i,:!1 i:~'~
!IIIII Ii
Ii
II
I.
II
!
I '
II( !.I
" .
lill~ I ::,'1 " '~l'lltl"dl'
, .1 'I,!lill', ,"I'
11I11 >IIIH..I.. - "..,
Ii I ~i,li
I l~ H
Idll i...,. 'I
I !. ~ iiI, '" r t~ ,,1. I" ,:+!lil
'I ~ I .1 "!";;,,, 'i-!!l
:1,,,,,1.01 ' , Id!~I"I"I" '!'.JJl.l..11III!
b;: II 11th I ~:tali ii,l;"i ,t.:"-
iUlllllu
Ii
II
"
II
"
II' I
III;
! i i
i 1 f :::
II' i "
III I ,
, 'HIlI if I
Ilh!lhld .I
1.,IUmmg
ill 11111
IJ
lj
I,
I!
'j
:i li
It I: e' UOHTQLI..
ill! i I iftf:' .1~I.i1g Iii ~I
1111,'. I j "/ ,'"or ~ ''', Ii
," I 'n ., , ,,,,~ ill
It1hill II! "1" [ ," ;\~ ~,
h!llltl,lh.,.I. LI ,,11,1
Iu hl,l
11
'I
I.
II
I
,
If ,
1111.
I, I
I'll'
1!111
lll!!j
~1!l1t.
,I, !!In;
iUI.111
i I
LJ
~.~
~ !
* ~
. .!
~ t
w
"'en
::>li;
~w
"-:I:
>-en
:I:>-
Cl::>
.~:JO
..--
C>
--I
<(
E ;;'d:~a ~
t , ~ i
~ ~ ! t
)1
I.
II
'j
II'
. I
I"
dl!l; ,
If,lqid'l ,I -i
1111 'II - ,
11'11!1 i I 0,
Il1lmll,l!I'"
1';'11"'" i ...1
t.l mill. ."
iu I It Ii,
11
II
,.
II
'J
'Il
1:1
"I
i' J
,Ir'
'I .
'.Ii !I
I hj. !"
!::j!'li,
Mil 111I
1Il1iJ,hlllli 1
!!I111l111
S.
--1'
_.1
,I,
Jl
'I
,.
II
I
!I!
I (.
,I!I 'Ii'ii!! .' 'IJl;om ~
if!IIIHidlllllil!. :~
I'll I....... . M
i l'hl 'I:...... '''J '
I'! 'III I, "\,i:1 II 'i7~ I
I',' 1111l1'1'1,!illil.'lIll 1"J~L.Jl~
.~ u!! lilill::ll';" ,;l'j;"-""
!!I!ll Ii
II
)'
"
ji
!
II
"
I!
., I
It I i '1"1
II' ..
II ~ 1<[ ,!:. I ,.:Ij
1"11'; j J~.~L'~
I:tll.
uit'l,',. J!
t: I '~, ."1' , . ,.,' ~ ,
: ' - "I' 'l'~~fl ~ I;
",hhl,l! 8 I' /l:~.\O:';I.,i'
iUllh I ' I,~ ,,",ml,b~
,
I
1i:1
I,;i
lJI
'1
IJ
I.
)'
!
Ii
"
~! !
1111
!t i e' .., -~) j I' ';,
,l! 1 ,I -i . t,
: Ii 1.1 .
Hil'il JI
':II,t~1 I 1:'1" ", .
l= f 1.,11 JI~lll'~ ~Illi;l Ii
I 18 l~ ~I,:' I 11):: l,
I!J fill E , ,!~r;,I,lh";":!I:1
i I I
:.JI'J
Ii
~:
-~ ~
~~
I.
Ill!l ;11 i 1
l'I-}i<1-
II :;
oJ I- II" l!
Ifl ! II
! ,',I ! ,'I' .:',\]1:,...... :~""i- -I
t111.i i lit:111111. ~ ,~~~
1IIIdll~'~ '1,@
'l'ill;!ll~ H
I, '1".1 I 1<1'1
Iii 11I11~hl ' II !H,H: !: :l~!III 1
l't'III'Ii"'!'-t'I',:i",'!'!,]:' 'l'~o!!!~
. . It I \"j,l\I''\, .....
!U 1111" I Ii
;ill'
t, ,
" 'I'
'I 'I
1111 i1.
'11 II
lllti '-\
11\11'11'
llllllb,l'
I\.\;II}IIII
11"1 JI
hit! hlill
11111111,
,
It~.I'
'!il,I,' kj t H
Iru.t~, ;
:i, :.1,:11 'i.t'i
""101',1:" 'I". I "I,[!
'.l ;'_~,,;II' :'1::1 .~I~. , ! I~I..I.'II
s'
'I p
, \'1
if I
'III "",",1, ,","i"i'I"l""'I_
I , I !il:\'! I '! ..~,
l'f. 1-, I. "ill
,I" ~ ",:1.1''', ,':if' I
pl. I l,~ !-
11111Ij'I~. H :
,I. I"lil ' '.~'I'
t'.i i JI~ I (: !I. Hi I 11:"1 I
hll.hmllli i !:iil~li!~:!!1 'I:~~~d~
!lIllllllh .
'I'
Ii
1!1 I I '
Ir~ ! ..;.... ,AI:.
Ilh:' . .or,r.
III I!' .~.lol
III 'I !J~' -~-
l!fUI,I! 'I.;,."
I JI'!III' J 'i.II.' e,i"'" .Ii~ill."lil "
l!tJ Il~hl C1~ ,):.I!(,:I: :Ml,:; H!il!~:I:iili,! ~~lli
:\Ir IIlil
,
n t
I't. I ii1~ :
it i l/id,j
Ilil, .",.:.
\)1" bl!
1'~I;l! i"':' .
.11" II "~-
!1~liidU.';:'-'
IhllJ,db il
i II I' ~ ~]11; I;,: '):t: I /
!\f !Il ~ . i~,j;:,:,')'!ii,l::i
I I .1 L. J -
" : i" -. ",'! ':ol.~ _, I"" ) "J 0 .' . ".
,1:1 - 1,:-1'; 1,Jn' dJ': "I
\ l' ~, ' , c.'::' 1;,-:; ,1.;"1 ~: ~,;' \- 'U -l;-J i I
': 'I " ~~rOI ~'.j
"y!"IIIY',",'\ iU
i" 1'1 '~ ! ~ \ \, " ti I 11 I 1.
Ill:
lift.. ~.'
',II I' I L.'{I
Ill: ~;i:IB- I I
':111 I'-
II a -
IIIi II i ,'P'II,','1':ljI , Ii
1111,' ,\"i'lll" " il"1
II" I' ,1,1:"11 I.' III '.,' I
u!ttlnf ;Hii~!\!I!WIII'11 I.i,' \Jl ~
:11111
,
II
,-
Jl
!
!1,llil i
'II! !
!ill; ;
ljfl: I
'1'1" ,
l. "
U!il!
t'",'ll! I
. ,q.
11;\""11111
1r:.I,J,lil..
lu I '!II
,
Ii
If
I,
II
-,
'11'1 .
t,!['11
.it 'I \
!"t' !
,t 'r'
~ll, . i ~
-'f"'I"'~~""""
'it It. '.::",'(..' ' -:'6:'
hl\'i ".,...
., I. I 'c,__ '. . i,'
"lll.l'lll .Ci'~,,:, ,'~,
"11'1' .,. ,.,
.. .1,
\li!;'ll""
lhltl. II",
hI 11,,1
"
11
II
"
II
I
I i
',1
l"l~..
I, ,. ,,.,.,'
II. , ",""..'
I:i Ii ........
I in!i I "
1,'11'\111"\1-
/"Il..
111 I,l! I
!j
II
t,
II
'J
I i
II j
II .
fil,i
'1111
t...
!fI',i
lj",t
1,,11'
.1111
laulll
iu l.h I
I
Ii
, . ,
~ ~
. "
. ~
ff
~ g} ~
r ~ !
~ ,L I
'I
"
II
!
II
"
n
.',
lIil
!It'
-ill
Iii
II,
,nil
;u d
,
Ii
II
.-
('
I
l'li '
II, I
,11dl
1!I'1l'
I ~.l t"
II', 'i "
'ilp.
I'''i!!lll
'"'1'
UII'!i!l,j
IIt'I!ltllllil
i",III,,1I1
ill f II! II
,
U\\i\h i\~d: ~, t' ~
jl[!l,jl ~'I;I1. 1"":....
" j'I" ,. II'
:.I;IiIl'~"I:,'")-'" I'
. .' !
1/
)1
,-
il
'1
.iiilll II
"',1 "
1l1'1,1111'
II i' I
'11l"ll Ii
! Ii ql! II
I,ll! lillI,
I!!li \'11 HI
llf"lI!',
"I,W. H.
lmllll,
,
jj
II
'-
il
"
'.'f "
1!1'1\ I,
II" \'
, Ii I ,I
1111 II Ii
I' I' II
II 1,,1 'I
',il'l';l
-, hili,'
I!! i il'I' HI
II",lll'\
,1I'llhi!.
hn I Ill.
.
Ii
II
I,
I!
'!
'''1 I
11'1 .1
,t'I' [I
I'll "
I: I'l,'l
II ,"
, III I!
! 1111'1
Il ~ '1111,
!! liilu III
li,lllll,lh!
hu I !II,
i
Ii
w
ao",
~li:i
_w
LL:z:
....'"
~~
[:::iO
N
o
---I
Ie::(
"
.,
4
~\~
--1-
~~\
\
\ \
,
~ i I j
tin i\
U~ii ~\ l J .'
,~I'.J' },
III I
')1 I'
I, ,I
II'! II! ,{I
,.t ! j .'~/
III I,l,!!
q \.C~i
Itl1tl\ldh\
'1'111\1'1 ..'
1;, !rill
~II i Ill! I,
i ~ I: I : \ .:. ,; ~ ! i. i .
11"1..... '
I'f\\(" ',jY, j 'I~i:\i
1l" :\;~ , \il
ilt\ \~!,I, \ i~.II,;
':iI:];ij:!
":,i,;:\\l\\!I,:
ll')Jil(
!
,
,
\ I I
'II 11
>lll' ! I
hi,l t, I .. j 'i I'\!~
II!! ihl!;' i." i, \11. .
1"11' ! ' II
'!11hl".llltL1, Iii I ' ,I II I .
,1!'!I1I1' '~"'. .' :i\1. :
!1I111,111 I,. 1'",\ .I~
II l!
qUIA-,
Ilill'l ~
IIIII ,i I'
b I . t ~ 111 ~
H. d ,II:: "
'1'1!\ll'!!
!~ Ihllll!! ' '
IlIl!.\!1
.
.......--
1" --~ - \ \
1 ,~\;
I;' \ r\'~ti ~ ..:
a 1 .1
111\,1
I' 'I
i' ~.
II I d
iI' ...
I" I'
IIi :'\ I!
I.' II,
..;1111'1\
Il:l dldh
IIIII!III,
.
II ~
41 i!i. .l\Imm
Ii'! IIII1 t ~.l'''''''''
i . 'I I".',
1'1 1 II\! ~\ tl (U.U
'I!\ II III: I. 1\liH!!
1 !ll l! 11"11 ~:~
111"11' -
t.!.: 1 c.
lmllll, '"
. .
. , I r
.
II
,.
II
!
I'
I
il
,.
il
!
';1';,', \;'" Ni1r~ q 'v I ~ j c;~' ~!\'
a"i, ::,--,-"1"" _J:::~L" JJDII,-F::JS 'JI_
<; o:t'-,:'il:,:~' -"l',t--;n N,""I"'I \' "XII,'
\,' ~ (; 11,~i --j: >!
"'I'" . "1
"j!'" ",1..1'1"
t'~ 11'1 }I~\ ~ i ,1
,
~l r
~j! f
,i;; l
,;' \
in : i
,a ~ j
h. . .
.,,' .
,'1" ;
:,t I!
\!~i nt',
\,,'li",'ll
I. I~, ,
. , I
f \ I ~l i ~ I!
"
i!
"
l~
i
[Pill 'I
,1.\ I
!!ili! \ ", ' ~ "'1
\1",11 I \ '/'" ,Ii,
ri Illl[ I! ., ';, I " I ij;
II! IiI! i ~I" " ; 11' ~ ..
ili'!!lllll!' I' ~,' ' J I
i"llllm'l lli, "I' 'D.ilf~ I
l!il hillhill liW, ,il'~1 " ll, '1M .
in! I IUl,
,
\'
!
II
,.
II
!
II
\I~la
i\ i 1 '
- '. .
~ ! I )
t ~ t ! I:'
'Ii jjl: QO.
~.t' 1::!~ ~ ,<
I H~ ntH ~ nn;
k~HtHm ~ :i!;:'
"
11
"'{ I
1'f .lg J
.
H
II
,-
il
I
lP ! ; ~,
~l\i"!I,l'!1 '1\lll\:~. .~I II.
'\r"ll! ',,,,Ip I
1\1 \\\\\\\ \\~: ":'\11"11' :~ I~\ !
ltihm"ig' Itl. .'. . ~i "\
, I i~.II _. I ,
!" di. IJ
II
"
II
!
Ii
II
1\
'I
1111
It\ .
1\ I J.1 '"
illl L lr~ ,I~'
.t l\ \ I ".II}~ J ~ ,
HI" .ii:.:', ,..
",\",11111 "hi,l" ,; 1
'Iii Ill, if'!"- ~ d
Irt,!d!lti! ~\L., '1\ I;
In IIdll
1 \
It
I
I "W' I
, 'j,!~l~ 1
':~')I'.
"j" .
.rt.
ii\\'!li~~
:,' ,~";'i \
~" hb .'
~",. "
...,'\r.'li.'
_.~J ~f f1~
~I :.
, I-
. .
b ~-
elf
w
a:",
~\ij
u..",
1-'"
"'I-
19a
C"')
ci
l~
E.'&"l'i
! ~ i i
u ); ) ;
'I I
\ '
:'1 :
'\ '
'.' \'
." ~
\1\ I
I ,~. ~
"III
..1"1
li!!hh I
\UII\hlil
hi I'I! I
;
I
. .
, ,
'I '
hl\ II
I, I,
\\! I \
ill i I
u' ~ I
Ilillll!
IlHhl.!ll
II! h" I,
,
~\
r ~
1 IBi
',: ":^=. ."11.
m~
I--~'-' ;--
Ii
Ii
~!
l!
'i
a' i
.,. j;
'i' ..
\\1\ !
11'\' II
"II'
I\l~\li i
Ihl\l!!,\llll
ili\'I\l!H\
Iii 11,,1,
.
"..---
"
\1
hI I
~l'
"
jl'i
n_
-h
II:' .
. ..
\) .~ I
\,'\\\; ,
0,." i
I r\ i,;,\
\.., \-1
(-titti"J
h,';.,tit'iH..~11
it",,-
, '
Iii II"!:
II
I.
II
,
\" .
,~l I
illl ! I
:!I! II
'I" ' I
III · '
hl\r: I
1I;11I,1I1.1!..
rd\ll\illilll~
Iii llub,
i
(1\
\OfI]
~
1\
~-
-... -
~;
I I' 'i
,
, !
HI I.!!! ~I ,:
,"!,;", ,I I II
~ .. hi::} -J _ <:]<J
I _
" ~ j '..:I'.:.N\' e:,L;
;i,~(\ \c:~I~~J~~ ;"J-~;~:' '~/'~~l~';;
OJ1 l.. L _ I'lil'Hl N. .. "
':ll\'UII';~\: "",) lHJ_1 '.!
V ," . _ _~ I I
:n\il'IJV\II'jiH 11:1
--.l\iV -',II' "~I ,
~
~ .
:!: Ii!
<- t-
~ y
<=!
E ti'.-ill ~
" ,
I :ll !
co
:z
i=
:J:
co
::J:z
~:5
~Ci5o..
...--
....J
:<(
!
<;.)
/) I .
"\/ / i
! "
. I
.' 1/
! I
//
,
I
-- ~ l~ _
1.\'~.1C-T \ ~
. \.~-~
-..
"
\,
'~-\ ('
"-)
/-
\///
\
.
,
'-.
\
\
, .
\ ~
..,
,
~
/1
'I
J
Ie.:::.
1
J
=
=
=
'[;
/ .
i I"
r~.
\.-V' 'I,
1.1
'~"
~;.
I
.'
I
I
ATTACHMENT NO.4
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
UPDATED MALL ENTRANCES
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main 81. Elevations\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Entries and Main St
Elevations.doc
7
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SCANNED:
G DRIVE:
PERMITS PLUS:
INITIALS:
PLANNER:
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\Oraft COAs.doc
1
,Kitzerow
't $
a~ 1989 ~
IJJ"f: O~
IONS. NEW O\,\'
ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I,
(print name) understand that Planning Application No. PA07-0299 has
been approved with Conditions of Approval which are set forth in Exhibit A. I have read the
Conditions of Approval and understand thern. Through signing this ACCEPTANCE OF
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I agree and comrnit to the City of Temecula that I will
implement and abide by the Conditions of Approval, including any indemnification
requirements imposed by those conditions.
SIGNA TURE
DATE
G:\Planning\2007\PA07~02g9 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\Draft COAs.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA07-0299
Project Description:
A Minor Modification to an approved Development Plan
(PA06-0293 - Promenade Mall Expansion) to construct
new facades for the six mall entrances.
Assessor's Parcel No.
910-420-005 thru -009
MSHCP Category:
DIF Category:
Not Applicable per Development Agreement
Not Applicable per Development Agreement
TUMF Category:
Retail Commercial
Approval Date:
January 16, 2008
Expiration Date:
January 16, 2010
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicanUdeveloper 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 applicanUdeveloper 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)). (OR)
2. The applicant shall review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document
that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an
original signature to the Planning Department.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\Draft CQAs.doc
3
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0299 Mall Minor Mod. Main St. Elevations\Planning\Draft COAs.doc
4
Planning Department
3. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
4. A Minor Modification (Administrative Approval) to approve paint colors of the existing mall
building to compliment the color of the new entries shall be required.
5. A Minor Modification (Administrative Approval) to review the facade change for the "New
Public Restrooms" identified on the Site Plan shall be required.
Building and Safety Department
6. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
7. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2007 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2007 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access
Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. Please note, plans submitted after
December 31, 2007 will be required to meet the provisions of the California 2007
model codes.
8. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
9. Show all building setbacks.
10. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems. For developments with multiple buildings, each separate building shall be
provided with a house meter.
11. All sales office facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998).
12. 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
Fire Prevention Bureau
13. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\Oraft COAs.doc
5
14. During remodeling and/or addition construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS
will be maintained in working order and up to their original design and performance
specifications (CFC art.87 et all.
15. If any changes are going to be made to the existing sprinkler system, a sprinkler tenant
improvement plan will need to be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review
and approval.
Community Services Department
16. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
17. 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.
18. All landscaping, entry monumentation and on site lighting shall be maintained by the
maintenance association.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\Draft COAs.doc
6
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod ~ Main 81. Elevations\Planning\Draft COAs.doc
7
Planning Department
19. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Building and Safety Department
20. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Fire Prevention Bureau
21. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Community Services Department
22. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main 81. Elevations\Planning\Draft COAs.doc
8
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\Draft COAs.doc
9
Planning Department
23. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Building and Safety Department
24. Ali Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
25. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule. plumbinq
schematic and mechanical plan apolicable to scope of work for plan review.
26. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
27. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Fire Prevention Bureau
28. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Community Services Department
29. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main Sf. Elevations\Planning\Oraft COAs.doc
10
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\Draft COAs.doc
11
Planning Department
30. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293. Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Building and Safety Department
31. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Fire Prevention Bureau
32. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Community Services Department
33. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
34. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise sDlid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0299 Mall Minor Mod. Main 51. Elevations\Planning\Draft COAs.doc
12
ATTACHMENT NO.5
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MAIN STREET ELEVATIONS, LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE, AND LIGHTING
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0299 Mall Minor Mod - Main St. Elevations\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Entries and Main St
Elevations.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SCANNED:
G DRIVE:
PERMITS PLUS:
INITIALS:
PLANNER:
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\Planning\Draft CQAs - PA07-0300.doc
1
.Kitzerow
ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I,
(print name) understand that Planning Application No. PA07-0300 has
been approved with Conditions of Approval which are set forth in Exhibit A. 1 have read the
Conditions of Approval and understand them. Through signing this ACCEPTANCE OF
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I agree and commit to the City of Temecula that I will
irnplement and abide by the Conditions of Approval, including any indemnification
requirements imposed by those conditions.
SIGNA TURE
DATE
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\Planning\Oraft COAs ~ PA07-G300.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA07-0300
Project Description:
A Minor Modification to an approved Development Plan
(PA06-0293 - Promenade Mall Expansion) to review the
architecture for new retail buildings, as well as lighting,
landscaping and hardscape for Main Street expansion
between Macy's and Edwards
Assessor's Parcel No.
910-420-005 thru -009
MSHCP Category:
Not Applicable per Development Agreement
DIF Category:
TUMF Category:
Not Applicable per Development Agreement
Retail Commercial
Approval Date:
January 16, 2008
Expiration Date:
January 16, 2010
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)). (OR)
2. The applicant shall review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document
that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an
original signature to the Planning Department.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\Planning\Oraft COAs - PA07-0300.doc
3
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised EntrieslPlanning\Draft COAs - PA07-0300.doc
4
Planning Department
3. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
4. A Minor Modification (Administrative Approval) to review the proposed renovation to the
facades that front Cinema Plaza shall be required.
5. A Minor Modification (Administrative Approval) to review the design of the mobile "Retail
Merchandise Units" or RMU's shall be required.
6. A maximum of 10 "Retail Merchandise Units" or RMU's shall be located outside of the Mall
at anyone time. Any request to increase the number and location of RMU's must be
reviewed and approved through a Minor Modification application (Administrative Approval).
7. The new Main Street and surrounding area shall contain backup lighting consistent with the
original Mall Development Agreement.
Building and Safety Department
8. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
9. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2007 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2007 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access
Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. Please note, plans submitted after
December 31, 2007 will be required to meet the provisions of the California 2007
model codes.
10. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
11. Show all building setbacks.
12. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems. For developments with multiple buildings, each separate building shall be
provided with a house meter.
13. All sales office facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998).
14. 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
G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\Planning\Draft COAs - PA07-0300.doc
5
Fire Prevention Bureau
15. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293. Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Community Services Department
16. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
17. 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.
18. All landscaping, entry monumentation and on site lighting shall be maintained by the
maintenance association.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\Planning\Oraft COAs - PA07-0300.doc
6
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\Planning\Draft CQAs - PA07-0300.doc
7
Planning Department
19. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Building and Safety Department
20. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Fire Prevention Bureau
21. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Community Services Department
22. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\Planning\Draft COAs - PA07-0300.doc
8
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\Planning\Draft COAs - PA07-0300.doc
9
Planning Department
23. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Building and Safety Department
24. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
25. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule. plumbinq
schematic and mechanical plan applicable to SCODe of work for plan review.
26. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
27. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Fire Prevention Bureau
28. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Community Services Department
29. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\PlanninglDraft COAs - PA07-0300.doc
10
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0300 Mall Minor Mod ~ Revised Entries\Planning\Draft COAs - PA07-0300.doc
11
Planning Department
30. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PAO?-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Building and Safety Department
31. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PAO?-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Fire Prevention Bureau
32. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PAO?-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
Community Services Department
33. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PAO?-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this application except as modified herein.
34. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07 -0300 Mall Minor Mod - Revised Entries\Planning\Draft COAs - PA07 -0300.doc
12
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING:
January 16, 2008
PREPARED BY:
Cheryl Kitzerow
Matt Peters
TITLE:
Associate Planners
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
Planning Application No. PA07-0286, a Major Modification
application to construct an additional parking level (deck) at the
West Parking Structure at the Promenade Mall expansion (PA06-
0293 and PA07-0154) with proposed modifications to the fioor
plans and elevations of the West Parking Structure to
accommodate trash service and a modification to the site plan to
accommodate a bus turnout for the expansion area, located
between Macy's and Edwards Cinema at the Promenade Mall,
bound by Winchester Road, Margarita Road, Overland Road and
Ynez Road
RECOMMENDATION:
l8JI Approve with Conditions
D Deny
o Continue for Redesign
o Continue to:
o Recommend Approval with Conditions
o Recommend Denial
CEQA:
o Categorically Exempt
(Section)
(Class)
[gJ Notice of Determination (Section) 15162, Previous EIR
o Negative Declaration
o Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: Forest City Development Corporation
Date of Completion: November 27, 2007
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: February 25, 2008
General Plan Designation: Community Commercial
Zoning Designation: Specific Plan #7, Temecula Regional Center
Retail Commercial Core IPA 2)
SitelSurrounding Land Use:
Site:
Existinq Promenade Mall - parkinq lot
North:
South:
East:
West:
ExistinQ Commercial Uses
Existinq Commercial and Office Uses
Existinq Commercial and Residential Uses
ExistinQ Commercial Uses
Lot Area:
Parcels within Mall Loop Road - 78.06 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
Existing
Proposed
Permitted
.36
.41
.25-1.0
Lot Coverage:
Buildings Only:
Existing - 20%
Proposed - 23%
Maximum Permitted - 32%
Existing - 20%
Proposed - 27%
Maximum Permitted - 50%
Buildings + Structures:
Landscape Area/Coverage:
Existing -18% (3% hardscape/15% softscape)
Proposed - 20% (5% hardscape/15% softscape)
Minimum Required -15%
Parking RequiredlProvided (for
entire Mall project bound by Loop
Road):
Existing - 5,432 spaces
Proposed - 5,509 spaces
Required - 5,292 spaces
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
On February 21, 2007 the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA06-
0293, a Development Plan to expand the Promenade Mall by 125,950 square feet with an
outdoor life-style main street shopping center consistent with square footage allowed in the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. This application also included a Conditional Use
Permit to construct two parking structures.
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MODIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
2
On October 11,2007 Forest City Development submitted Planning Application No. PA07-0286
to construct an additional deck on the previously approved West Parking Structure. The
project description was expanded when the applicant resubmitted plans to include a
modification to the fioor plans and elevations for the West Parking Structure to accommodate
trash service inside the structure, as well as a site plan modification to accommodate a bus
turnout in front of the East Parking Structure along the Ring Road. 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
When approved in February 2007, the West Parking Structure included two levels, 90,800
square feet, and 241 spaces. The proposed modification is a request to construct an
additional level (for a total of three levels of parking) and 120 additional spaces. The modified
parking structure would include a total of 329 parking spaces and 144,213 square feel.
Condition of Approval10a for PA07-0154 (Mall Modification Application) required the applicant
work with staff to provide a location for trash service for Building C and E. As proposed, a
single compactor unit will be located on the ground floor of the West Parking Structure. This
will result in the loss of three parking spaces. Tenants would access the compactor from
proposed doors on the east elevation of the parking structure. A new sidewalk along this
elevation is proposed to provide access from the rear of the retail and restaurant buildings to
the trash compactor. This new sidewalk will include a five-foot sidewalk with a five-foot
landscape planter to screen the elevation.
As a result of the trash compactor location and the proposed additional parking deck, there will
be a total of 329 spaces in the West Parking Structure. Overall, the project site (Promenade
Mall) provides 5,509 spaces, which leaves the project over parked by 217 spaces.
The request also includes a site plan modification to provide a bus turnout along the Ring
Road, adjacent to the East Parking Structure. The bus turnout will also be used by CR&R to
service the trash bins located behind Building F. A shelter, bench and trash receptacle are
proposed at the bus turnout. In addition, pedestrian access to Main Street has also been
provided. Landscaping in this area has been modified to provide trees required for screening
the parking structure, while also providing for a four-foot clear path of travel.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on January 5, 2008 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 modification. None of the parties had any objections or
concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously approved EIR
and is exempt from further Environmental Review (CEQA Section 15162 Subsequent EIR's
and Negative Declarations).
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MODIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
3
The application for the proposed Major Modification 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 Major Modification 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 Major Modification 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 Major Modification will have one or more significant effects
not previously discussed in the FEIR and Addendum. No additional retail square footage is
proposed with this Major Modification. As a result no additional vehicle trips would be
generated. 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 Major Modification 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, transportationltraffic, utilities and service
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 Numbers PA06-0293, PA07-0154
and PA07-0286 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 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 Major Modification, 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 as part of the approval for Planning Application
No. PA06-0293, 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
G:IPlanningI2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT. doc
4
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.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDA 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 approving the proposed Major Modification subject
to the attached conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Major Modification to an approved Development Plan/CUP
Develooment Plan Der Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municioal Code
1. 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.
The proposed additional deck at the West Parking Structure 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 design of the proposed structure substantially
conforms with the approved expansion plans. The proposal results in the provision of
additional parking spaces for the Promenade Mall; no additional uses are included with
the proposal. The proposed parking uses are compatible with the surrounding
commercial buildings currently located adjacent to the proposed site. No additional
retail square footage is proposed with this Major Modification. As a result no additional
vehicle trips would be generated.
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.
Conditional Use Permit oer Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municioal Code
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan No.
263, the Development Agreement, and the applicable provisions of the 'Development
Code.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
5
The site is properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the
proposed parking structure. 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. The project as
conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of the Development
Agreement, State law and local ordinance.
2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development
of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures, and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the project has
been designed to integrate with the adjacent architecture and provides landscape
screening in a manner consistent with the Development Code. The building is also
compatible in scale with the surrounding uses and will blend in appropriately.
3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and
other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in
the neighborhood.
The site for the proposed parking structure is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the required development features. 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.
4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
The nature ofthe proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community because the project will provide required parking to serve the
commercial development and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply
with all UBC (Uniform Building Code) and UFC (Uniform Fire Code) standards.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 8
2. Approved Plan Reductions, Site Plan (PA07-0154) and West Parking Structure (PA06-
0293) - Blue Page 9
3. Proposed Plan Reductions, Site Plan and West Parking Structure, PA07-0286- Blue
Page 10
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Oeck Major MODlPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT. doc
6
4. PC Resolution 08-_ - Blue Page 11
Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval
5. Initial Study - Blue Page 12
6. EIR Addendum - Blue Page
7. Conformed Copy of Notice of Determination for EIR Addendum - Blue Page 13
8 Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 14
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07 -0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlannlnglPC STAFF REPORT. doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MODIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT-doc
B
o ,00200 IJQJ
.-
ATTACHMENT NO.2
APPROVED PLAN REDUCTIONS
SITE PLAN (PA07-0154) AND WEST PARKING STRUCTURE (PA06-0293)
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MODIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
9
~~~~
. " l ~l }
% .~~ ~t %% \ _ ~. - t~ ~
\l;~\~. \\~1% .t~ ~ll\ \\1' \ ta~\
\ b'i\~ \ 1Hn ll>i~l~~ \ ..~~~ ~~%~.
~
\ \\\\
h>!"
\i i
.\ .
\ i\ \\\
\1~.~""
'"
g~~
6~5
',h'ii-a
O~"
~
.mer
~
6
\
\?)
<t.
.......__.-.---------- 0-
"J.~_,.. - -.-",
<::~,
'\\-
-<...... (}1\Q\\ ,
'<v"
"'"-.'0",. '''' I~
"
">0"
"
o
~ ~
"-rt;
~~'3
<.0
~
~.
,'':',
/
,
'-.
\--.
~
--9
.
"
"
~
.
-"
~~
~~
-"
%
'"
:;
~
~
o
.
1
~
~
t1
1
'i
"
<~
~.
w_~\
~
.
og ~
~'/.1':j
~"<
c"
~.
r>;i;~
~~1
.' .
a'i. ~
,..'" "3
~~ i
_0
..
-
-;
I _
\
'~
~
i~~ ~ I
n. _~ I
iWh!111111
. _.8.1<I<J<J<J<J.
~
>
~
~
.
~
".
00
'>
,.
~ ~ N
!i::l ;;: ~~
~~< ~ ~O
o I:: ~~
~~ ~ :~
3~ ;S g~
ffi!i: ~ 8~
~~~:l1 ;;!it
Ii t;:i l!i
~i~ *~ ~~
G
~
G
~ c-'
IS
lil
iii
lil
lil ~ ~
iii 0
z IS
c
"
'"
>
u.
ii:, lil
I'
!::~ iii
~
iii
e
~~ L'
o .l1
~lSj-.
Olil .
I
g
iii
~
o
~IS
G
~
iii
g
<;1006 VINl:lO.:lnV:J 'S31JONV SOl
001 3.1105 '.i33.l:llS 3.dOl-4 I-Unos 6~6
S:3.1VIJ<)SSV l:l31NJ:) WAOI VlnJ3l'fll
\1OOJl(.) 'vi'DI'Bi
_lIIIl!IIlIrl!Yl
mvm g ~ IIrtIffi~ III
.
8 0>
.. ~
.I~
~ ~
m
~ ~~~
8
iii
lil
IS ~:i
~ ..! I
lil'~,~.
.
.
8
I I::
ZO~ !
~
i ~
0)
z
C
"
'"
>
u.
-\
I
iii
fil
iii
~ IS
G
~
lil
iii
*1
~ ~
. .
i ~ I
n.h
~ i ~~
3' z :l1z
0)
8
z
o
"
~
W
-'
~~r.\.
1-,
Ie
o
Z
I ' 0
uUu ;I~ ~
LeO
~~j: I~~~
1 J .t 0.1.' I _
r<'J
(
r-O
~
'?
3
a
&
-,-
..t:::,J
-="
.!~
1m
r--
o
o
'"
ID
o
-
CD
o
o
w
~ ~
'---\..../
(=)
'II~
it
,-lll
~
--.U ---L.:.
r=~
.Tl~ ·
.q~
:P!I
z
C
"
'"
>
u.
-,'
i
)
,1
lilgjj.
ro ".. ~ Ilm~
1 1 ,J~ <r
i Hlf~ ...~}
w ef~ ~ ~[T:<0: fJ<!~~
;; ro 235 ":S EE
~ e 5 ~~,'.'~o "t:. L!-~
o ~, ;a AL~() q 1." ~
urU; ~ c 'b Q
':; :> H: 8 -~ ~,<,,~ .,;.~ ):-:;
--' 0 1;: ," '" ~ ~ s. '-( - -
~ OC :Ee-'~'~ ~ ~ -;- ~ ~ 1
- n (j) ro..... c:i ~ '"
t:u.~a::o:o z ~..-
~ D..o""OO 5l s <s ?"'_-
J-4: J.:>> ~~ ,~-reo
rt;r,'fi,I'11
~mlt u~
IJJ:~ J ",1
""'Ii I'
:mlvl'+
n"'I' l,j
il:!J!lf' !li
tmUi- ,1,.
I"
.
j
;111 I II
,I<J<J<J<J<J
.
~ .
. .
,L; ~~
ImUI
. ~ -
if.- :L
~9 I I.m I p~~
~~ g iliiil!ii I !ill:~
~~
~ l'!i; _
i i",~~
! i::lM~~
j;ti!~Si
l
-~--I
: L r
I Z I
J wWO j
I o:::C>- I
I =:J<t:.(fJ I
I f-c:r::z I
I :::><< I
I LLClXCL I
, ,
, w,
, ,
W"1 '
:rTl~ 3F ~:-
-~ -
=H= H=
~r
iV- :: = =~ -1"""-
~ ~ -== ==
~ ,,= "IltI= ~
- -- !!it-
= === li=
': IIIIIIIIII~~II.IIIIIII {fL
.^
"
..
'! IJ.J
0::
::J
I-
<.>
::J
O::c
I- '"
"'0:
Cl-
2q;
- Q)
l<:-J
o::~
~g
1-0::
CfJ~
IJ.J'O
$:~
"'.'" - ...~.
~
il
~ E!
I :;~<. 'i
Jl .dhi::l i
'3d~~ ~
i!Hn Ii
.
.
;;::j
~~<
IlS~~
~~l ~I
J~2;
i~~ I d,
t~~! '/1
~""'t. '.,'
cCl
2
\
<::
~
Gl
:j
IJ.J
O::c
::>.!!!
1-0..
u_
=>q;
0:: Q)
I--J
CfJL;
Cl::t
20
22
0::<(
<( -
a.E
f-M
(/) .
L5~
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PROPOSED PLAN REDUCTIONS
(PA07-0286)
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-Q286 Mall Garage Deck Major MODIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
10
:\
~\~\ &~ \
~: ~~
~ ~~
\ '~~ \ \
',t Ul
~' i.i', ~ ~
i~':l;, h ~ m 0
~-,~\- ~ C\i
, "" i . <!
;.l t. :r'
1~~~ I,:~ ' III .. 4:.
h,~olo ,<,: ~ ;
I \ t~:~,
~;;~ '.;~~)
/-1 -',
*\1- ,< "
" ,..
S~o:
g~ffi
rE'l ,
WI ... \
Q ~\
~ C>
.....
= t-
[,JLj\ Q ~
,-
l:J ~
\Rl\ ~ I
D ~ ffi
D
/
~~
\~ ~m \
~ ~. , \ \ \;
\ ~ \ "
\ \
~ . \
< ~ " ,
, ~: ,
\ " , ~ .
\ ~ \ \
\ , '. \ "0
\ itJ'"
\ z'!i
\ GA
\
, (>
t,
" u
~\~
W(k;~
D
,
~
~
"
~
,..
",.,..,~ .,_''''j t,
_---i3.-........H!J'109 .---' ~,~
---",.... ..-~.
'$.\
\
\
~\
I
\
\;;~t'
~,,\;
~W
..
% ~ .ow
;~
~
~
o
5
~
~
~
o
'I
,1
i'
1,It
..;H
~.\
1 h
\\\~i
~. j
\,'
;\,\
tw,
\."
~i
,m
,
.
>
~
~
.
I ~
"
"'
!:
~~
~~ ~
~~ ~~
~~ i~
~ot8 ili'"
!~, ~~
-~.. -~
,
,
I
~II
.
~
o.
~ .
0'1:[' .
I . ,,(-., , '
.
I
.
I
~
o
~I
o
II
~
Ii
~9~ i I
~~, -~
~!i~h jill/II
h . a3 .I<I<J<J<]<]
, .
'i-, Z ~
Q<€ ~ '"
0< ~
~g ~ ;:
8~ ~ g
~~i ~~ ~
"._'e ".. ·
...il;ii ~f ~
(~)
./
i
!
I I
Iz!
d
~i
>1
WI
ui~
~:~
,,"
o~
cn~
I
o
ii,
Ii!
In
o
I
I
f;~006 VIN~Jn...~ 'S~ so,
OOl J.11n5 '13]WS ldOH fUflOS 61<6
SlJ. YOOSSV HllN3:> NMOl Vln:l3rU.1
00011I') 'm:lra1
__11I11I11I
ImNIl.NIMJlHIl
"
"
8
.
.1
I!!
I
H'
o
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
.
'\" .
'.'. .:..
.. ....:...
~>
)
z:
0'
j:::
c(!
iii'
..J'~
ur~
I-~
In.
W~
;:.
I
I
I
~ 1
. ..
o
u
o
"
l ~
i I
~~~
?~:::
ai
I
I
I
II
v
.
o
~ ~
2 t ~
i~.P
~ ~ 'I' i
z '" Z ~
'~g .~~
"'~'" 5~",
M hi
r;..>
\..~
I
i
I
I
,
z:i
01
H
~
iij,
::r:ir
1-.
a:1~
01
~
JtJ__
II~
,15
, ' .
:Ll f
t ..
t,. ~
.1 " i ..,.'.:lII,.,,;,;,;,_.,.,....=.,.,'.~..',.
~II"'~" .
G ~'llf'''''''''';
I' '~
) .-
.
I'
'.~~
.... ".".
"
""
q
~
I~
Ii"'
~,~,
~.~.
i~
,/"\
'()
2
o
~
~
~
.. .
o ~~t
~ 41)1..,
_ ~'i
U '<Sol
.n
\ u \ ~~~
. "1 .11 lW
\~ ~'i ~i t' . . ~
~. .\ \ 0
i\ 't
;--,-\)-- h\" . ~
f ~i~~ H\~ \ ...
t 1:1..... ,
~ . .
,
.~~~
~..,...
~-----
t~
g.~
o ~13
t
. Co)
.
Itt
g",
~13
\t~
g~
~13
0\...... -.1'><1'<': .
, ,\"
;;; - 'r
Ii '~
. -
, ~
~
l\"\~ '
~~~\, \ \
,!>".l!i" \l t
t t '
. t pi
,l~l'\\
i.\~~\~
qllt~:"~
\
,
\
\ \\\
\ \\.
. \1\
, \1\
'> '\
\
CI
~jll "
~1!'I;n
I Illll
.
VlN~O;jI1'v'3 Vln::m'Hl
~
."-~':~~J ~a?
"~JI_,,", 0lIw'I W~ Gji=: ~
~II ...J 0 ........
~~ "'7
1,"1"115<520 <(
II ! ~~;;;
3~nl~n~lS ()NI~""'d lS3M
3aVN3~OHdVln83~31
~ i
I
!I'! II
1,,1 illl ~i
.,',! ' -
Ill:! ill~!
111~1111!
lllllllll;! ~...
I '~5", Ii!
IIMI!!;il!!! ~
~ i
20
:l
~
~
~ w ~
>.
w,
~>
c:
20,
=--
~i
'"
~
o
u
<
m
~
j-
.
1
i_
,
~
~
j
"
, *i
~i'l '
~!!'l"i
~Il!l
fJ
,
VlNllO::lJlV:) m::l3t'BJ. I
3~mamUS ()NI~~Vd lS3M :
3aVN3~O~dV1nJ3~31 '
,
iJ'..' . ,
~
-""",'ON ...J
....--""'''''"''"' I ~~ N
'MI_..........II\"MIl, I~II ~~ 0
I I c~ "'"";'"
I I~ Ii Ii ~ ~ :J: <(
, '1111' ,-H" Z
: : II I ~!l'i:i
~
!
,
'.
--=...-'I'r
?-'\
Ib H ~
I!:II r.! ~
'"
..,
>
-1- ~
w
Z
:l
~
Z
:l
~
~
w
Cir
~-
c'"
z<.
0-
~
~i -
,
!;
Ii
i
(g)
o r-r-r-r-rur-r-ruf.ruru~j~:r-r-r-r
I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I a: I I I I
- 0--LJ II I I I I I .,' ~ J! ,I
l ' : 'U 1"11 I 'II I "1 I 1 'I \[ rl' 1"1 ,:" II '. h" '; ~illil ill I ;
~@--- , ltf- ,i I: ,i, I, 11'11, 'Idll, I I;, )Iiil ,i i :
l -t Iii! ! .' ! ! ! ;!i! !m! !J-t--ll:il~ I
- ~ ---+ 1i II :1 I II I II II! I I I Ill!; ---';-jll[
! -+- ~~I f\ II !r t ~~ I I I i~. ...: .It \,.$1 !: .
0)--, =rvrTl:r I ~ 1 'ii II II' II r 1--1 y., - - ,~
M \ II -+,j iil!i! 'ili,ii T i' il I i! , i' i t:~
c;>! _ : . 1-" ,!!Si ,h.l' , , , , , , , ,
- i ,{ ~~'.:,II~.,~' I ! J.~ IJJJl !. H
0)---tL~, :J. ~ i+-~""'-n-"-~ ,}}~ . __ _ ~-
~ I /1 ' 'I 1/ d I I I, I ~F--.J ~
N ~l' ~ .,'... ' ,'I, I I: / /1 I' 'I' I' I' I' ;" I l!!l, I
/ '~ , / 1/ I ~II '"
I I'll ," I'., ~'r'... ,"I' /, 'i II': II" ' I': 1'1' I J'~I~
+ "/I "'I!" f : Ii j I ~ I t! I
0-- It~-It-- I --'--~; ... ,')' i ~ 1 'i,' r 1 ~
w
m
-<
Q
o
1tllRMI'Soo3TMt"'to'&l<'6~I(NlJro:Il__. ..I-Pl-WVL-,t\..
ro
..
~ i
~
i
! -
.
~
i
;
!
I~
i
!
I-
I
i
,
i
,M
!
. ,
]
L
.
j
i
1 ~
i
,
!
,
i -
.
1
~-
.
~
i
,
8
.,
~lll "
~1!'I'li
~ Ill!
fJ
,
V1NijOSlW 'f1(l::l3N3J. :
,
3~nl~n~lS DNI~~Vd lS3M '
,
3aVN3~O~dVlnJ3W31 :
,
,
~..-~ :;.,.-' "" ~
-....._..lIDD......ll'Wl ~TJI ~ ('I')
~II, ~u 0
cu~ ~
ililil ~ ~ ~ <(
~
~I -
,
,
~ ~
~
~ !!!!;!!! r- ~ ! ; I! ~ ; ! !
1 -- 1 -- I n' 1 n' 1 .- 1 .- 1 .- I ,. 1 .- I ,. 1 .- I" '''1;- I ... 1 .- I "1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I til::l I I I
- 0-- ,1-J 1 1 1 I I ..J..-'-_..1..J, ; ~,I ,I 11/1-
l' ,1' I'll' I, 1'I'! 1 'I 14,' I 1 I !'I- r kl i 1"11, rl'I,' Ii'. !( ';, 'II I "I' 1 'i, i,', I
"" "I I I I I ! I ",I ,., , , ,
~-'~.' , ;...., I, I I I!: I -. ,
~ 1 'q- ! i i i i j i i ~ll i~t--l-~ i i jll i i
-, JI-i- I, I II ' 1II1'I1 I Jill! Ii Ii, I , -l--,~-~ 1
0-',-'rf~trl -I i ~i , :i Ii Iii I 'i ;i~lii "ii iL-~I. I l: ~.'
n ,'il -i"J I Ii " i liT i i il ii i F I
W .,......... I I I j I I I I ! I r-----., I
'-,-.( ,....01 J',J - I I ~ II, I III I, hI" 'i
~ I. 1.1 I . I . Ii i I 1'-- !ll'
- I! I ~ ,. )-; I I"' Ii ii1 ~ ,,\ d----- .i
0-- -tL-l- I ~ --f--+-- "". ';', lJ-4-!1~:,'h;,' :-
N i i il ;' I' ," I" i'/ II '/ i ~ I ~ i i ~, -,mij!i 1~,
l i i ~ i~l~ ,'~ 'i ,/. Iii i i j : i !Ii/f '
, , , ,", ~,' " /,/~' '^ ' , , , , ij
I I I I I ~ l~ , 1 III ': I' I' I I; I I J!:
'0-- -'--'---- -'-----'---'-.~-~ -', , ,I.J ~i I~, '1' .---L-'_
1 1 I 1 I 1 I" ~ , ,'It. I I I I' I
- " : ';I
w
o
u
m
<
TUM'a SOOrrM If\' n.." lIOIlWl 9fllITOl-'lli9lI_ ., ,". ... . ftll m__t It\:o
~
...
~
z
..,
~
::~
~;
~~
~>
~
~
~
"
.
j-
1
j
,
!
!~
i
,
1
j-
I
I
i
1 ~
i
.
!
'-
l
i
,
,N
.
1
.
,
,
1-
1
,
~-
<
~
'i
,
!
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-_
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOOIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
11
PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA07-0286, A MAJOR
MODIFICATION TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL
LEVEL AT THE WEST PARKING STRUCTURE FOR THE
APPROVED TEMECULA PROMENADE MALL
EXPANSION (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA06-0293)
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. 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 T emecula Regional
Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263) and Environmental Impact Report No. 340.
B. The City, Forest City Development California, Inc., a California
Corporation, and LGA-7, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, entered into a Development
Agreement dated December 17, 1996 for the deyelopment of the T emecula Regional
Center. The Development Agreement was recorded on December 30, 1996 as
Document No. 488428 in the Official Records of the County of Riyerside pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65864 et seq.
C. On September 12, 2006 the City Council introduced, and on September
26, 2006 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-10 which approyed the First
Amendment to the Development Agreernent extending the term of the Development
Agreement to January 16, 2010. The First Amendment to the Deyelopment Agreement
was recorded on October 11, 2006 as Document No. 06-0748777 in the Official
Records of the County of Riverside pursuant to Goyernment Code Section 65864 et
seq. Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership
("Developer") is the successor in interest to the Owner's rights in the Deyelopment
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 approye 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.
F. On September 5, 2007 the Planning Commission approved Planning
Application No. PA07-0154, Promenade Mall Modifications.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanningVanuary 2008 - Mall PC Reso - Major Mod to West Parking
Structure. DOC
G. On October 11, 2007, Forest City Deyelopment filed Planning Application
No. PA07-0286, a Major Modification to construct an additional level at the West
Parking Structure for the approved Temecula Promenade Mall Expansion in a manner
in accordance with the City of T emecula General Plan and Development Code.
H. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
I. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental reyiew on January 16, 2008, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff, Deyeloper and interested
persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter.
J. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA07-0286,
subject to and based upon the findings set forth in this Resolution.
K. 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:
Deyelooment Plan (Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municioal Code)
A. 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;
The proposed additional deck at the West Parking Structure 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 design of the proposed structure
substantially conforms with the approved expansion plans. The proposal results
in the provision of additional parking spaces for the Promenade Mall; no
additional uses are included with the proposal. The proposed parking uses are
compatible with the surrounding commercial buildings currently located adjacent
to the proposed site. No additional retail square footage is proposed with this
Major Modification. As a result no additional vehicle trips would be generated.
B. The oyerall deyelopment 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.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanningVanuary 2008 - Mall PC Reso - Major Mod to West Parking
Structure. DOC
2
Conditional Use Permit Der Section 17.04.01 O.E of the Temecula MuniciDal Code
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, Specific
Plan 263, the Development Agreement and the applicable provisions of Development
Code;
The site is properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the
proposed parking structure. 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. The project
as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of the
Development Agreement, State law and local ordinance.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adyersely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures;
The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition, and development
of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will
not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the
project has been designed to integrate with the adjacent architecture and
screened in a manner consistent with the Development Code with landscaping.
The building is also compatible in scale with the surrounding uses and will blend
in appropriately. .
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this development code and
required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with
other uses in the neighborhood;
The site for the proposed parking structure is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the required development features. 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.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community;
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of the community because the project will provide required
parking to serve the commercial development and the project has been reviewed
and conditioned to comply with all uac and UFC standards.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanningVanuary 2008 - Mall PC Reso - Major Mod to West Parki"g
Structure. DOC
J
Section 3. Enyironmental Determinations.
A. In accordance with the California Enyironmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and
the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has considered the
proposed Major Modification. The Planning Commission has also reyiewed and
considered the Final Environmental Irnpact 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 approyal of the Addendum to the FEIR on September 26, 2006, and the
subsequent enyironmental reviews of development plans for the Mall following approyal
of the Deyelopment Agreement. Based on that reyiew, the Planning Commission finds
that the proposed Major Modification 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 Major
Modification 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 Major Modification will haye one or more significant
effects not preYiously discussed in the FEIR and Addendum. No additional retail square
footage is proposed with this Major Modification. As a result no additional yehicle trips
would be generated. The Development Agreement proYides that the Deyeloper has
yested rights to proceed with the proposed expansion of the Mall and the parking
structures. All potential enyironmental impacts associated with the proposed Major
Modification are adequately addressed by the prior FEIR and the Addendum approyed
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 approyals of the Deyelopment Agreement and the
extension of the term of the Development Agreement by the First Amendment to the
Deyelopment 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, PA07-0154 and PA07-0286 are the vehicles by which the
City confirms that the standards and requirements established in the Deyelopment
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 proYide for any
new structures or uses not fully contemplated and addressed in the Deyelopment
Agreement. Therefore, a Notice of Determination pursuant to Section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is the appropriate type of CEQA
documentation for the Major Modification, and no additional environmental
documentation is required.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanningUanuary 2008 - Mall PC ResD. Major Mod to West Parking
Structure. DOC
4
C. Although not required as part of the CEQA review, the Commission
reviewed a Supplemental Traffic Analysis for the Promenade Mall Expansion as part of
the approyal for Planning Application No. PA06-0293, prepared by RBF Consulting
which determined "that cumulatiye trip generation estimated for the approyed
Promenade Mall/Power Center I and II, Costco, Bel Villaggio/Overland Corporate
Center, and proposed Promenade Mall Expansion project falls within the Specific Plan
total included in the original EIR Traffic Study preYiously approyed 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 deyelopment in the 1-215 Area to become part of a fully and funded
Community Facilities District for the construction of yarious 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 Development 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 reyiew in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City
of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Section 4. ADDrovals. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
hereby approyes Planning Application No. PA07-0286 subject to the Conditions of
Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanningVanuary 2008 - Mall PC Reso - Major Mod to West Parking
Structure. DOC
j
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 16th day of January 2008.
,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. 08-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of T emecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th
day of January 2008, by the following yote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanningVanuary 2008 - Mall PC Reso + Major Mod to West Parking
Structure. DOC
6
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SCANNED:
G DRIVE:
PERMITS PLUS:
INITIALS:
PLANNER:
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\Planningldraft COA.doc
1
KITZEROW
~ ~
~~b 1989 /
'J1: o~
IONS. NEW OyY
ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I, (print name) understand that Planning Application No. PA07-0286 has been
approyed with Conditions of Approval which are set forth in Exhibit A. I haye read the
Conditions of Approval contained in PC Resolution No. 08- and understand them.
Through signing this ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I agree and
commit to the City of Temecula that I will implement and abide by the Conditions of
Approyal, including any indemnification requirements imposed by those conditions.
SIGNA TURE
DATE
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\Planningldraft COA.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA07-0286
Project Description:
Planning Application No. PA07-0286, a Major
Modification application to construct an additional
parking level (deck) at the West Parking Structure at the
Promenade Mall expansion (PA06-0293 and PA07-0154)
with proposed modifications to the floor plans and
elevations of the West Parking Structure to
accommodate trash service and a modification to the
site plan to accommodate a bus turnout for the
expansion area, located between Macy's and Edwards
Cinema at the Promenade Mall, bound by Winchester
Road, Margarita Road, Overland Road and Ynez Road
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
910-420-005 thru -009
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
Expiration Date:
January 16, 2008
January 16, 2010
Approval Date:
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicanUdeveloper 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 administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination. If within
said 48-hour period the applicanUdeveloper 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)).
2. The applicant shall review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document
that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an
original signature to the Planning Department.
G;\Planning\2007\PA07 -0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\Planning\draft COA.doc
3
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MODlPlanningldraft COA.doc
4
Planning Department
3. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification except as modified
herein.
Public Works Department
4. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Building and Safety Department
5. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Fire Prevention Bureau
6. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Community Services Department
7. All Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA06-0293, Promenade Mall
Expansion Plans and PA07-0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Police Department
8. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion and PA07-0154,
Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07 ~0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\Planning\draft COA.doc
5
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:\Planning\2007\PA07 -0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\Planning\draft COA.doc
6
Planning Department
9. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Public Works Department
10. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Fire Prevention Bureau
11. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Building and Safety Department
12. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Community Services Department
13. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Police Department
14. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MODlPlanningldraft COA.doc
7
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOO\Planning\draft COA.doc
8
Planning Department
15. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Public Works Department
16. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Building and Safety Department
17. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Fire Prevention Bureau
18. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Community Services Department
19. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification, except as modified
herein:
a. All details for the compactor in the West Parking Garage shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Services and the City's franchised trash
hauler.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOo\Planning\draft COA.doc
9
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\Planningldraft COA.doc
10
Planning Department
20. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Public Works Department
21. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Fire Prevention Bureau
22. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Building and Safety Department
23. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
Community Services Department
24. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification, except as modified
herein:
a. The compactor and adaptations shall be operational and approved by the Director of
Community Services and the City's franchised trash hauler.
Police Department
25. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans and PA07-
0154, Modification Application shall apply to this Major Modification.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\Planning\draft COA.doc
11
ATTACHMENT NO.5
INITIAL STUDY
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
12
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
City of Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...............................................................................
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. W ater..................................."...." ..................,........................... ........................ 26
7. Biological Resources ............................,.,..,...,........,.,....,.,....,.,......................... 28
8. Energy and Mineral Resources ........................................................................ 30
9. Cultural Resources ..,..........................................,.........,...,..,.......,.,.............",., 32
1 O. Recreation .............".....,.............. ..................,......,..........".. .......,.".................,. 33
11. Aesthetics.....................".................................................................,................. 34
12, Geophysical ........................,...,............................................. ....,....,.................' 36
13. Hazards ......... ..............,.."......................................................,.......................... 38
14. Noise ,.......,..,.....,..........,.....,.....,.........",......,...........................,."....,...........,.. .,. 40
15. Air Quality ..........................................................................., .,.... .,..,..,), "......." ,.. 42
16. Mandatory Finding of Significance.................................................................... 43
17. Department of Fish and Game 'De Minimis' Impact Findings.......................... 45
18. Earlier Analyses .......................,.............................................,...........,..,........... 45
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Specific impacts that are unavoidable are listed on page which is reproduced as
Attachment 1 to this document
Temecula Regional Gerner
Initial Study/Q83106
-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
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1063106
-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 Temecula
(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 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 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 T emecula
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 of retail 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 deyeloped within Planning Area 2 of the T emecula Regional 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 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
Temecuta Regional Center
Initial Study!083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emeoula
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 "Temecula Regional Center EIRn. 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
I Roads 26,04 0
I Project Total 201.30 2,483,000
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
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, T emecula 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,
Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west.
Construction Scenario
Construction will consist of the final phase of development and parking structures that would occur
at the T emecula Regional Center within the core retail area, central mall. The exact schedule would
depend upon market conditions and availability of materials. 'Construction is envisioned as
occurring between early 2007 and late 2009 and is estimated to encompass approximately one year
to complete during this period,
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.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO63106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula 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 Westem 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 pennits 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 ErR evaluated the impact of the development of the uses listed in Table 1. The
existing and approved development associated with the Specific Plan is listed in Table 2.
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 environmental determination 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 the
City at this time is the extension of the approved Development Agreement for an additional three
years and ~onstructi6n of the final phase of the Temecula Mall as provided for in the Temecula
Ternea1a Regional Center
10"181 StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
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 CEQA review process for this facility
can be minimized through reliance on the certified EI R to determine whether the potential impacts
from 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 CEQA 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 that project
unless that lead agency detennines, 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 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 infonnation 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;
(8) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or altematives previously found not to be feasible 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
altematives; or
Temecula Regional Center
Initial 5tudy1083106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
(0) 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 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 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.
The City of Temecula 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 - Temecula Regional Center, can
rely upon the EIR certified in 1993. Determining 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 'Temecula
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 pertinent 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 s\lcond test that may be used to determine whether a second-tier project falls within the scope
of anEIR is to determine 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 enYironmental 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 CEQA procedure 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
Temacula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
Temecula 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 CEQA 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 determination is
required,
. The project and associated impacts fall within the scope of impacts identified for the entire
Specific Plan, Howeyer, due to more detailed, project-specific information 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 CEQA 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 impact forecast in the EIR and
since such impact(s) cannot be mitigated below a less than significant level, a subsequent
ErR must be prepared.
The Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form follows.
T emectia Regional Center
Initial StudyJOB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T ennecula
T emecu(a 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
Public Services
Water
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Geophysical
Utilities & Service Systems
Energy & Mineral Resources
Cultural Resources
Hazards
Population & Housing
Transportation/Circulation
Noise
Recreation
Air Quality
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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 REPORT is 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 earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An
Addendum will be adopted by the City as the appropriate CEQA environmental
detennination for this project.
Name
0~'-n-r-- ~<;'~
"l /~f
Date:
f~ ,#-0 '-.
BY:
/) /,I'z.€ cAn
Title
"
T emecula Regional Center
Inlllal StudylO631 06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
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 Supportinl1lolonnaliOfl Souroes):
Potentially
"""'tkant
,,,,,oct
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
,-",than
Significant No
,"""act l"llact
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.
3) 'Potentially Signilicant Impact' is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the
Planning Department staff lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or
more 'Potentially Signilicant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is req'uired.
4) 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated' applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a 'Less than Signilicant 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 the end of the checklist.
6) A reference list of information 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 discussion. See sample question
below.
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources):
Potentially
Sl"""'_
''''''''''
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
'-",than
Sigllficant No
""""" ''''''''''
Would the proposal result in potential
impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1, 7)
T emeculll Regional Center
Initial Study/083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT 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
City of Temecula 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
T&B Planning Consultants, Specific Plan/EIR, T emecula Regional Center (Specific Plan 263),
1993/1994.
U,S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map: Murrieta, 7.5' Quadrangle
Soil Survey - Western Riverside Area Califomia (1971)
Congestion Management Plan (RCTC)
Growth Management Plan (WRCOG)
Other: South Coast Air Qualitv Manaceinent District. ACEQA Air Qualitv Handbook@, 1993
Other: Southern California Association of Govemments 'Regional Comprehensive Plan and
Guide', 1997
Califomia Energy Commission, 'Fuels', July 1999
Riverside County Flood Control District 'Suoplement A to the Riverside Countv
Draina.ce Area Manapement Plans. and Attachment to Suoolement A', 1996
11. Other: San Dieoo Reoional Water Qualitv Control Board Water Qualitv Control Plan (Basin
Plan\ 1997.
California Enerpv Commission 'ELECTRICITY Reoprt' _ November 1997
Development Agreement By And Between The City of Temecula, Forest City
Development California, Inc., A California Corporation, And LGA-7, Inc., An Illinois
Corporation, December 1996.
Final EIR, Temecula General Plan Update, March 2005.
First Amendment to Developmellt Agreement, By And Between The City of
Temecula and Ternecula 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 Concerning Consistency With The Specific Plan EIR Traffic
Study Findlngs, May 1997.
Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, Costco Relocation Traffic 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 of Temecula, certifying the EIR and approval of the
mitigation monitoring plan for SP 263 by the City of T emecula, July 1993.
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
,
Other:
Other:
12.
13.
Other:
Other:
14.
15.
Other:
Other:
18.
19.
Temecufa Regional Center
Initial SludylOO3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regionaf Center
INmAL STUDY
VI. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST & DISCUSSION
A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by
the infonnation sources cited in the parentheses following each question.
Issues (and Supporting ....w.,..___.. Sources):
Potentially
Significant
'''''"''
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
less than
Significant No
Irrpact ~act
1. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (1a, 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?
(la,1d,2)
y
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (1,2, 14)
y
e) Be compatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (1,2,14)
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts to land use and planning of the Temecula Regional Center, of which the proposed project
is acomponent, are forecast on pages V-l 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
sne would result in the loss of approximately 201.3 acres of pasture crops and dryland grains and lands
designated as 'Local Important farmland' 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. The final
phase of development of the Temecula Regional 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 or Less Than Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would be
requiroo 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 subchapters of the EtR. The project must also prepare and submit a
Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Temecola Regional Center
initial Study!083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
In general, all projects in westem 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. Imoacts 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 farmland
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 agricuitural property
or classified as important farm land by any local or state entity. Therefore, the development of the final
phase of the T emecula Regional Center would not be considered significant to agriculture.
1d. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less Than Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project is in the
west-central 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. Imoacts 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 lxi completed during operation
of the remaining portions of the Regional Center and some disturbance of on-site traffic would occur.
However, no long-term land use incompatibility with surrounding uses would result from project
implemen!ation. 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 agreement during which the final phase of
development will be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, land use and planning issues,
related specifically to the proposed development agreement and buildout of the final phase of the Temecula
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 Final EIR.
All land use and planning issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is
approved and implemented. No land use mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with
the data contained in the TRC Final EIR.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study!0831 06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting Inloonalion $oun:esJ:
Potentially
Significant
'n,,,,"
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigate(!
Lessman
Significant No
ltlllact Irrltact
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 governmental 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 adverse impacts 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 transition 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: schools and
medical services. Many of these services are self-supporting, i.e., 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, Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EtR. The project site is served by the
Riverside County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry on a contract basis with the,
City. Five fire stations serve the Temecula area and are staffed by both paid and volunteer personnel.
The closest station to respond to emergencies at the project site is the station located at 2741 5
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 site.
This project site has been generally included in the City Fire Protection Master Plan's facility
improvements and staffing increases for Temecula. It is not expected that any new physical facilities for
fire protection will be required to serve the project.
ihe project site is not within a Wildland Fire Protection Area, i.e., 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 impaclin this area.
T emecula Regional Csnter
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA.. 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
California 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 signnicant adverse impacts to police services and no additional mitigation is required for this
project.
2c. Imoacts Remain the Same or less than Characterized in the TRC EIA.. The Temecula Unified School
District provides public elementary, junior high and high school education for the area surrOl.mding 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 be required and no
adverse impact to school facilities is forecast to result from implementing the proposed project.
2d. jmoacts Remain the Same or less than as Characterized in the TRC EIA.. 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. ImQacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA.. 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, Imoacts Remain the Same or less than as Characterized in the TRC EIA.. 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 commercial
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.
T emecula Regional Center
Initial Study1OB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT 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 signnicant impacts n 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 Infonnalion Sources):
Potentially
Significant
""".ct
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
_ """,ct
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)
y
y
c) Sewer or septic tanks? ((1,2, 14, 15)
y
d) Solid waste and disposal? ((1,2,14,15)
y
e) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ((1, 2, 14, 15)
f) Storm 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 certnied TRC Final
EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the FEIR concluded that no signnicant adverse impacts would affect any utilities.
However, cumulative impacts would remain signnicant. Standard conditions and a few mitigation nieasures
were identnied 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 long-term 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 ofT 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 County which
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City 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 storm 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Southern 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 b.uildout 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 EtR and General Plan EIR. 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 result 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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,
3c. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Demand for wastewater services would
result from the ...' "...v~ed 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 Eastern Municipal
Water District=s Temecula Valley Wastewater 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed 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 EtR and found to
be less than significant applying standard conditions and with mitigation incorporated. Solid waste
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL 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 EIR. The proposed project is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). The proposed 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
EIR. 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. Imo.acts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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 EIR. Please refer to a detailed discussion of this issue in Section 6, Water. The
proposed project would comply with all iRiverside 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 storm 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 EIR.
TemecuIa Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting Inlonnation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
,.,,,..
Pmenlially
Slgnillcanc
Unless Mitigated
Less than
Significant No
lff1)act Irlllacl
4. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
Cumulatively exceed official re9ional or local
population projections? (1,2,14)
y
b)
Induce substantial growth in an area etther
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 Temecula 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 not provide housing or lead to a significant increase in population or housin9.
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 stte. Implementation of the proposed action will enhance the
jobslhousing balance for the City by increasing the total square footage of development within 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 site 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 utili1ies and services will be required as part of the project. Existing utiltties located on site
may be relocated as part of the project to accommodate the 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 Temecula Regional Center. As tt serves existing
and planned needs, the proposed project has no possibility of inducing substantial growth within the City
or project area in general.
4c. Imoacls Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. There are no residences within the
proposed project stte that would be demolished as part of the construction of the final phase of the
specific plan. The project stte 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 StudylO63106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City 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.
Potenllally Potentfally Lass than
Signiflcanl Significant SignilicllIlt No
Issues (and Supporting InfonnatiOfl SoUI'C&S): h~ Unless Mitigated ....act Irlllact
5. TRANSPORT ATIONlCIRCULA TION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or tratfic 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 wnh 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-117 of the certnied TRC Final
EIR (FEIR). Extensive mitigation measures were identified to reduce circulation impacts. The analysis
concluded that wnh mitigation incorporated, no potentially significant impacts would occur to the circulation
system as a result of the specific plan implementation. However, cumulative impacts to circulation would be
potentially significant and could not be mnigated to a less than significant level.
Traffic impacts from buildout of the General Plan, which include the anticipated buildout of the Temecula
Regional Center Specnic Plan, are also evaluated in the recent General Plan FEIS. Several intersections and
freeway ramps are forecast to operate at less than acceptable .levels of service, even wnh all feasible
mnigation incorporated as a result of General Plan implementation.
The proposed project being considered in this Innial Study is a proposed Development Agreement
Amendment to extend the term of the Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an addnional 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, Imo.acts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The City of Temecula has identified the
minimum level of service (LOS) as 'D' 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
Temecu:la Regional Center
Initial StudylOB3106
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 EIR.
5b. Imqacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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 EIR the
proposed project is not forecast to pose significant hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists, or motor vehicles.
5c. Imoacts 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.
5d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The existing specific plan and City of
Temecula zoning ordinance 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. Imo.acts 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 alternative modes of transportation, including public transportation, as they have
the potential to ease general traffic congestion in the area.
5f. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project does not affect any rail or
water circulation systems as none exists in the project area. The project is not located within the airport
influence area of French 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 implemented. 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.
i
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Cenler
Issues (and SupPOrting Information Sou~s):
6. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount ot surface
runoff? (1,2,14)
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding and
inundation? (1,2,14)
c) Discharge into surface waters, or in other
alteration of surface water quality, (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(1,2,14)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (1 ,2,14)
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)
Substantiation:
INITIAL STUDY
PotentiaJly
Significant
"""""
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
te..lhan
Significant No
"'-" -~
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
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 of the certified TRC Final
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 TRG EIR. Implementation of the Specific Plan was
anticipated to result in changes to absorption rates and the amount of runoff from the project site. An
engineering report (See Volume II of the SPIEIR), and drainage study were used to analyze impacts of
runoff from the implementation of the 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 Regional Center
Initial Study/083106
10M DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T 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. Imo.acts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. Based on a review of pertinent FEMA and
FIRM maps for the project area, the proposed project is located partially within a 1 OQ-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 less than significant. Thus, the implementation of the
final phase of the Specific Plan will not resuit 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 EIA. Further, the
project site is not subject to significant flood hazards from seiche, or tsunami.
6c. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. 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 Storm water 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 (Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan, SWPPP) and over the long-tf3rm (Water Quality Management Plan, WQMP), no
additional mitigation is required to ensure this issue is appropriately addressed, Compliance will be
ensured through fulfilling the requirements ofthe 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 EIA. The project is in an area where depth to
ground water 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 demand
equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required for a 500 dwelling unit project (approximately
25P acre ft. per year),
As discussed in response 6c, surface water quality impacts would be below a level of significance with
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
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City 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 significant 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 resutt of 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 water
mitigation measures in the EIR, water issues are not forecast to experience significant 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 if 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 m~igation 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.
Potentially Potentially le<sth",
S1gniflC8l1l s_ Significant No
Issues (and SUpporting Inloonation Sources): '''- Unless MitiQated """'" -
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in Impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or y
their habitats (including, but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
(1,2,14,15)
b) Locally designated species and/or natural Y
communities (e.g. heritage trees, oak forests,
etc.)? (1,2,14,15))
c) Wetland habnat (e.g. marsh, riparian and y
vernal pools)? (1,2.,14,15)
d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors, y
(including, but not lim~ed to Murrieta Creek,
Warm Springs Creek and Cole Creek)?
(1,2,14,15)
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to biological resources from development of the project as part of implementation
of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-77 through V-83 of the certified TRC
Final EIR (FEIR), Several general mitigation measures were identified to address the project site biology
resource impacts. The EIR conclude(j that no significant 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 emectAa ReQiooal Canter
Initial Study1063106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City 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 wfih 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 Specffic 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 EIA. 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 mfiigation measures listed in the EIR in the biological resources
section.
7a. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EtA. The vegetation on the site was
categorized as introduced, or non-native, grasstand 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 wildlffe. The proposed project
would not disturb or destroy any biological resources,
There is no blue-line stream on sfie 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 concem
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 site. Raptors used the site for
foraging, but the loss of foraging habfiat at this particul;1r site 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. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. No riparian habitat, vernal pools',
wetlands, or jurisdictional waters were found on sfie. The sfie was used for dryland farming and was
highly disturbed at the time of the EIR analysis. Since the site is fully developed with urban uses, no
potential exists to adversely impact any wetlands.
7d. Imqact~ R,~m",in the Same as Characterized in the TRC EtR. 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 wildlffe dispersal or migrationlmovement 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 Specffic Plan development will not experience potentially significant adverse
impacts from project implementation. All biology resource issues are forecast to experience less than
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City 01 T emecula
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.
Issues (and Supporting lnformation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
""""
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
""''''on
SignlflCallt No
ln1>act Illll8ct
8. 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 T emecula Regional Center are forecast on pages V-84 through V-85 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 result from the proposed project implementation. However, cumulative impacts to
energy resources from general area-wide growth were considered potentially significant.
8a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project would not conflict w~h any
known 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 In~ial Study
for a further discussion of energy suppliers in relation to the proposed project.
8b. Imoacts That Were Not Characterized in the TRC EIR. The EIR 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 asphalt. 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 than
significant impacts if the final phase of Specific Plan construction is approved and implemented. No energy or
.
T &mectJIa Regional Canter
Initial Study/083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
mineral resource mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the
TRG Final EIR.
ISSlJ6S (and SUpporting Information Sources):
Potentially
SignifICant
""''''''
Potentially
SignifICant
Unless Mitigated
'-'.._
Significant No
lnlIact Irrpact
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 TRG Final EIR
(FEIR). The analysis of the project concluded that no signnicant 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 performed 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, Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRG 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 signnicant.
9b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EII1. The archaeological asseSsment
concluded that no archaeological resources are likely to exist on the project site. A mitigation measure
was included which requires that should in the event that any cultural resourceS are encountered during
grading or construction activities, work shall be 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.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Studym83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
9c. Imoacts 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 fann 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR.. The proposed project sne is not known to
have any unique ethnic cultural 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. Imoacts 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 cultural
resource mnigation 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 Final EIR.
Issues (atKl Supporting lnfonnation Sourt:es):
Potentially
Significant
''''''''
Potentially
SignlflC80t
Unless Mitigated
Less than
SigniffCant No
IfT4)8Ct I~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. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRC 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 wnhin 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 StudV1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T 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. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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 EIR.
Issues (and Supporting Infomra.tlon Sources):
Potentially
Significant
,,,,,,,,,
Potentially
Significant
Unless MItigated
Less than
Signilicant No
~act It'l1lact
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)
Create light or glare? (1,2, 14)
y
c)
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-56 through V-88, V-148 through V- 149, and of the certifiedTRC
Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase, concluded that no significant
adverse impacts to aesthetic values would resull from the proposed project implementation. Several
mitigation measures were identified to address the project site aesthetic impacts related to light and glare.
11 a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EtA. 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 determined 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 projeci will be
required to meet ~he City public works standards and any roadway improvements would be improved
to General Plan and Specific Plan specifications.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1063106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
11 b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. 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
surro'unding area is dominated by commercial uses with some office, industrial, and residential uses.
With implementation of General Plan and Specific 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.
11 c. Imqacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The implementation of the final phase
of the Specific 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
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 forecast to experience significant adverse
impacts from project implementation. Based on the analysis presented above, aesthetic issues related
specifically 10 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 TAC Final EIA.
TelTl8CUa Regional Center
Initial Study1063106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and SUpporling Inlonnation Sources);
PotentiaUy
Significant
'''''act
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
less than
Significant No
Impact \n1lact
12. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential 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?(1, 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 of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-12 through V-24 of the certified TRC 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 E1R 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 California. The Elsinore 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
the site since 1932.
12a. ImQacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The site is not located within a State of
California Fault-Hazard Zone for active faulting and no active fault traces or faults have been found on
the project 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 to non-existent.
T emecula Regional C&nter
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T 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 fau~ rupture would be less than
significant. Further, mitigation measures included in the 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-Temecula fault
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,
S~es w~h 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
northern part of the s~e as groundwater can be only 20 feet below the surface and soils are
susceptible to liquefaction. However, the impacl"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. ImQacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The nearest known special study zone
and active fault is the Elsinore fault located w~hin 0.4 mile west of the s~e. 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. .Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the THC EIR. The landslide risk within the area is low
due to the existing topography and the general competence of the underlying geology, Add~ionally,
the s~e 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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 w~h 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 a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Since this is a mandatory requirement, no add~ional mitigation is
required to control potential water quality impacts to a less than significant impact level.
12f. !moacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The soils on the site are susceptible to
settlement from intense ground shaking caused by seismic activity. However, implementation of
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
Temecula 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 signnicant 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 ErR.
Issues (and Supporting ..,...,........ Sources):
Potentially
Significant
'''-
Potentially
Slgniflcant
Unless Mitigated
""""'an
SignifICant 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, or trees? (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 generallythroughoutthe certified TRC Final EIR
(FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including th~ final phase of development, implies that no significant
adverse impacts to hazard issues would result from the proposed project. Several mitigation measures were
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study/083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
Temecula 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. Imoacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EIR. 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 of hazardous materials during construction. The C~y also requires
all spills or leakage of petroleum and other products during construction 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 add~ional mitigation is required to assure an
accidental spill will not result in significant water quality impacts.
13b, Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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 w~hin 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 bui~ to conform to all City police, fire and public works standards. '
13c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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
C~y requires Best Management Practices be employed to minimize the risks associated with these
unexpected events and the EIR also includes m~igation that would reduce the il1i1pacts of this issue to
less than significant. As a result, handling and managing hazardous substances and equipment would
result in be less than significant impacts from this issue.
13d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Underground utilities are present on and
near the site. However, the risk of these facil~ies 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 util~ies 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 Property Investigation found no toxic hazards on site. No other potential
hazards are known to exist ons~e. Therefore, a low probability exists that the site contains any
hazardous materials. The risk of exposure of people to existing hea~h hazards would be considered
less than significant w~h the mitigation in the EIR incorporated.
13e. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site is not located within a
Wildland Fire Protection Agreement Area, i.e., an identified special hazard area that requires additional
services be available from the Califomia Department of 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
Temecula Regional Center
Initial $tudyI083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emeoula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL 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 EIA.
Issues (and SUpporting Infonnation Sources):
PotentiaJly
Significant
,,,,,,,,,
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
L... than
Signiftcant No
''''''''' -
14. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,14)
y
b)
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 implem'entation of the
Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-31 through V- 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 resutting 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. Construction of the proposed project
would increase noise levels in the area and is considered a short-tenn 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 conditions or the results of the analysis would occur as a result of developing the final
phase of the Specific Plan analyzed in the TRC EIA.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
14b. Imoac:ts 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 Temecula 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 EIR.
Issues (and SUpporting Infonnation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless J.itigatad
......,,'"
Slonlficant No
lrflNI,ct l"1lacl
15. AIR QUALITY. Wou/d the proposa/:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(1,2,14)
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 Plan 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 construction air quality impacts, but impacts
were still considered significant.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
15a
&b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. 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
mitigation, 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 wnh 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, but the 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 EIA. The proposed project does not include
uses or encompass a large enough project to cause signilicant changes in area climate. No impact was
identified and no mitigation 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 permanent, nor are they normally considered so offensive as to cause sensitive receptors to
complain, Diesel fuel odors from construction equipment and new asphalt paving fall into this category.
Both based on the short-term of the emissions and the characteristics of these emissions, no
significant odor impacts are forecast to resull 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 mitigalion measures in the EIR, air quality issues are forecast to
experience signilicant 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 signilicant adverse
impacts from project implementation. All air quality issues are forecastto experience signilicant impacts iI the
project is approved and implemented. The impacts will remain relatively the same as were analyzed in the
EIA. No new mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the
TRC Final EIR.
Tem&etlla Regional Center
InIUaJ StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
IrTlI;ict
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
less than
Significant No
fnllact Impact
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 California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
y
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 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 approved T emecula
Regional Center Specific Plan. The project is part of the City of Temecula Specific Plan No. 263. The
construction and operation of this proposed project has been evaluated as having no potentially significant
effects that are significantly greater than those analyzed in the EIR and that would not be reduced to less than
significant level with mitigation incorporated from the Specific 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 result in additional significant adverse impact that requires new' mitigation
measures. The following text summarizes potential impacts and recommendations.
16a, Potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project have been identified
in the areas of biological and cultural resources for the Specific Plan in the Specific Plan EIA. However,
based on technical studies for these issues, all but cumulative impacts to Wildlife and Vegetation were
reduced to a less than significant impact level by implementing the mitigation measures identified in
Sections 7 and 9 of this Initial Study. With mitigation, all biological and cullural resources impacts were
reduced to a less than significant level, except for cumulative impacts. 'No further analysis of these two
Temecola Regional Center
Initial SttdylO63106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT 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, wildlifelvegetation, 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-term 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 Plan 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, would resuit 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 the Specific Plan EI R.
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 that 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 EtR.
Because no new mitigation measures have been identified and required for the proposed project to ensure no
significant impacts will resuit from its implementation, the City can issue an Addendum to the certified TRC
EIR as the appropriate CEQA environmental determination. Neither a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR nor a
Negative Declaration is required to comply with CEQA for this project. The City will adopt an Addendum to the
EIA 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 described in this document.
~
T emecula Regional Center
IMial 8tooy1063106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
Temecula 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 extensiOll 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.
T emecula RegiQnal Center
Initial StudylO63100
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
FIGURES
Temecula Regional Center
It1ltial StudylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
,T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
"'lI...UfUlm
www.delorme.com
1
~ml
o 2 4 6 8 10
Data Zoom 9-0
Data use subject. to license.
@l2004 DeLnrme. XMapl!)4.5.
MN (12.7' E)
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StodylO83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
INITlAL STUDY
City on emecula
Temecuta Re'1laoat Center
XMap'@4.S
..dO...~._li;J
\if~F;:;>'.;.- ,
-~ <
'-'-
Dala"",subject.tDlice<IS".
~ 2004 DelJ><me. )(Map!l4 .5,
\W'IW.detorme.cOl'f\
1
MN (\2.7" El
r,r
o "'"
~
d"
\600 2400 3200
Data loom n..Q
~.
010>>
ToM DODSON &. ASSOCIATES
T~a Regional Centef
Initial StudV10631{)6
ATTACHMENT NO.6
EIR ADDENDUM
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT-doc
13
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. ~15oo0 et. ~.), 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
, 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,
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 "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
I
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 undenaken 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
(0) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the, previous EIR would substantially reduce one or
more significant €<ffects 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 August 30, 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 ana 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 infon:i1ation 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 subsequent EIR need not be
prepared, and that the City may rely on this Addendum to approve the proposed extension to the
Development Agreement.
91544U August 30, 2006
3
ATTACHMENT NO.7
CONFORMED NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MOD\PlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
14
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL RUNG FEE CASH RECEIPT
Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA
County Agency of Filing: Riverside
r!~~-((
!,,) ~=
~~--~-~'1
~, ,'''; :c Cil'
h,' !,f'i,:,
;
i.. 00277006 ;
t ~ . j
LSf a.~J1!i~
Receipt# 200601088
Date: 09/13/2006
Document No:
200601088
Project Title: TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM NO.3
ProjecUpplicantName: CITY OF TEMECULA
Project Applicant Address: 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA CA 92590
Project Applicant: Local Public Agency
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
I&l Environmental Impact Report
o Negative Declaration
o Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only)
o Project Subject 10 Certified Regulatory Programs
IZJ County Administration Fee
DProject that is exemptfromfees (DeMinimis Exemption)
DProject that is exemp/fromfees (Notice of Exemption)
Total Received
Phone Number:
$850.00
$64.00
$914.00
Signature and /ilk of person receiving paym~nt:
~...,. t~ ~~
Notes:
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
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the
Public Resources Code.
State Clearinghouse No.:
Project Title:
Project Location:
[FRN~RSIDhou! [Q)
~t:P 1 3 2006
LARRY W. WARD, CLERK
By '1' r>'l-...... T. Marshall
Deputy
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
Temecuiii 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~~~ll1o'
Meridian on the USGS Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series TojJ1:>graphic
Map (see Figures 1 and 2)
A proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the
Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an addiuonar' 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 [Xj 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 CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures ([X] were [ ] were not) made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Consideration ([Xl was [ ] was not) adopted for this project.
5. Findings ([X] were [ ] were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the Negauve 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:
j)~~~~5/~
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
Date:
j1?g1)e2~~~~~mjnaliOn
:-r...~ 1"'.... f.f\.:. Z; ;;Jc..
POSTED
0cr 10 LUUb
Removed /D - ( 0 .J.Y-6
Bv: r?n, ~ non!
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:
ATTACHMENT NO.8
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MODIPlanninglPC STAFF REPORT.doc
15
~
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:
Planning Application No. PA07-0286
Forest City Developmenl Corporation
Promenade Mall Expansion area - between Macy's and Edwards Cinema, bound by Ynez
Road, Winchester Road, Margarita Road and Overland Road
A Major Modification application to construct an additional parking level (deck) at the West
Parking Structure at the Promenade Mall expansion (PA06-0293 and PA07-0154). Also
proposed are modifications to the floor plans and elevations of the West Parking Structure
to accommodate trash service and a modification to the site plan to accommodate a bus
turnout for the expansion area,
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is
consistent with the previously adopted Environmental Impact Report and Addendum and no
further environmental review is required. A Notice of Determination will be issued in
compliance with CEQA Section 15162.
Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters, Associate Planners
Environmental:
Case Planner:
Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Date of Hearing: January 16, 2008
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 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 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the
project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.
\\,\
'\' A,:~~~.~'1)~$~'
\-. ~ ,.~ <: ,::.~,) ,\
/ , .;)i" ~.:~ ~~l-~
.'
,->-"-
"
.~:
J(__..-
--
, -, I~
1'-1--:"1
'.'11"" "
, -, ~j.
. ,,' Ill! I .~ -', ..~11"'1"
..-' ..c,,~.~;~..~~':<- ~~l-' -- . "
,
'~'.. ~... ~
'.
">,.."..'1
-. '='.. ~'. ~.'
, '0
t ~!
t."'
// ~~~~~':~ii~;
-"c..
".
./ '"~I'-
, " i ,:..
::~.:~::..,{ .?'
"\. _ J'V/~f,:' i
-~.,
-.1
c-.'
_.~-'
.-.-
;.....--
./..- \ ,..
~ - '\... ~,-,,'~'---' ~ /"\-"'-r'- -.
"t1';:j~'.;.~\f~,,?jtt@::~~
'.' _~_,,:.' .., :.,..1,'" ,c'-<"'", \ N
-~ ."; ) ': " " :... I~- :}, I....i _
~
.t--'
/(
:;, --
"
/;'"
~~ "
ld:
'" :.'U
G:IPlarmingI2007IPA07-0286 Mall Garage Deck Major MODlPlanningINOPH-PC.doc
ITEM #4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECUlA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Dan York, Deputy Director of Public Works
Matthew D. Peters, Associate Planner
Chervl Kitzerow. Associate Planner
January 16, 2008
Planning Application PA07-0316, a Major Modification to PA97-0118
(Promenade Mall) to provide for vehicular and pedestrian enhancements to the
Ring Road. Site modifications include additional traffic signals, additional all-
way stops, access reconfiguration, modified striping and signage, pedestrian
enhancements, and aisle closures with associated landscape modifications.
General Plan Designation: Site: Community Commercial (CC)
Zoning Designation:
land Use:
Parking:
landscaping:
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing
Proposed
Required
Site: Specific Plan NO.7 (SP 263), Temecula Regional Center
Retail Commercial Core (PA 2)
Commercial - Promenade Mall
Existing Commercial Uses
Existing Commercial and Office Uses
Existing Commercial and Residential Uses
Existing Commercial Uses
5.432 spaces
5,509 spaces (net one additional space with enhancement plan-
note this total includes PA07-0286)
5,292 spaces
Existing
Proposed
Minimum Required
18%(3% hardscape/15% sofiscape)
20%(5% hardscape/15% sofiscape)
15%
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
1
BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2007, the City Council approved the Promenade Mall Ring Road Enhancement
Agreement. The agreement outlined that both the City and Temecula Town Center Associates
desire the Ring Road surrounding the Promenade Mall be enhanced so as to improve access
and make it easier for the public to use the Ring Road. The Agreement requires that the plans
for the enhancement of the Ring Road include: (1) reconfiguration of certain traffic lanes; (2)
upgrades to traffic sign age and street markings; (3) closure and control of selected parking
aisles along the Ring Road; (4) coordination of Ring Road traffic signals with public signals; (5)
enhancements to the pedestrian crossings along portions of the Ring Road; and (6) upgrades to
access points for certain surrounding properties.
On November 9, 2007, Forest City Development Corporation submitted a Major Modification
application for the Ring Road Enhancement Plan. Staff reviewed the application for
conformance with the Ring Road Enhancement Agreement, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans
(PA06-0293), Specific Plan No. 263, the General Plan and Development Code. Staff comments
regarding parking lot reconfiguration and landscaping were provided to the applicant on
November 20, 2007. The applicant resubmitted revised plans on November 30,2007. 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
The Ring Road circulation system consists of a four-lane, private looped road; radial private
approach roads from publiC arterials; drive aisle connectors to the mall buildings; and, access
driveways to surrounding properties. Modification and enhancement improvements to the Ring
Road circulation system intend to eliminate confusion at intersections by improving traffic control
and operations; reduce delay to the Ring Road approaches; calm traffic at key pedestrian and
vehicular access locations; eliminate sight distance constraints; and, improve signage and
directional striping. Implementation of the improvements occurs in two phases. The Phase 1
improvements represent a plan to be considered and approved by the Planning Commission
and the City Council on or before April 15, 2008.
Phase 1 imDrovements
. Install a traffic signal at Winchester West and the Ring Road. Coordinate the traffic
signal operation with the existing traffic signal system on Winchesler Road. Install
conduit and pre-wire for a potential traffic signal at Winchester East.
. Install a traffic signal at Ynez North and the Ring Road. Coordinate the traffic signal
operation with the existing traffic signal system on Ynez Road. Install conduit and pre-
wire for a potential traffic signal at Ynez South.
. Install six all-way stops at designated approach roads and access driveways.
. Install a two-way stop with enhanced signage at Ynez South and the Ring Road.
. Install a two-way stop with enhanced signage at Winchester East and the Ring Road.
. Improve access driveways to Bel Vellaggio including pedestrian cross walks and a
speed table at the intersection with proposed Main Street.
. Remove and close off 16 drive aisle connectors to the mall buildings parking access.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO. Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
2
. Add new turn lanes on the Ring Road circulation system: right turn to Winchester East;
left turn from Winchester West; left turn from Ynez North; and, left turn from North
General Kearny.
. Install signing and striping improvements for the entire Ring Road circulalion system.
Phase 2 imorovements
At the Director of Public Works' discretion, certain additional improvements to the Ring Road
circulation system may be necessary. The applicant agrees to conduct up to two traffic studies
of the Ring Road circulation system. The applicant intends to conduct the first study in calendar
year 2008 after the completion of the Phase 1 improvements. The applicant expects to conduct
a second study in calendar year 2009 after the completion of the Main Street and mall building
improvements. At any time after the completion of the Phase 1 improvements and within the
times established in the Promenade Mall Ring Road Enhancement Agreement, Ihe Director of
Public Works may direct completion of the following improvements:
. Install a traffic signal at Winchester East and the Ring Road. Coordinate the traffic
signal operation with the existing traffic signal system on Winchester Road.
. Install a traffic signal at Ynez South and the Ring Road. Coordinate the traffic signal
operation with the existing traffic signal system on Ynez Road.
. Remove and close off up to three drive aisle connectors to the mall buildings parking
access.
. Additional improvements warranted by the Traffic Studies and identified necessary by
the Director of Public Works requires future agreement between the City of Temecula
and Temecula Towne Center Associates.
Completion of the Ring Road circulation system improvements are secured with the Holdback
provisions identified in the Promenade Mall Ring Road Enhancement Agreement. More
specifically, the first $2 million secures the improvements for Phase 1 and the final $2 million
secures the improvements for Phase 2 improvements.
The Planning Department has included Conditions of Approval (No. 4a and 4b) requiring ADA
ramps at all pedestrian crosswalks and enhanced paving at the Main Street connection to Bel
Villaggio to further enhance the project area.
FINDINGS
Maior Modification to Develooment Plan (Section 17.05.030 of the Temecula Municioal Code)
1. 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.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
3
As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the land use and circulation goals and
policies in the City of Temecula General Plan and the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan. The project involves the modification of the existing Ring Road, access
and parking areas. No development is proposed with this project. The modifications will
result in pedestrian and vehicular enhancements which will improve access and make it
easier for the public to use the Ring Road. Additionally, the Major Modification is
consistent with the Promenade Mall Ring Road Enhancement Agreement executed by
the City Council on July 24, 2007.
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. The site plan modifications to access,
parking/landscape layout, striping and signage will enhance the Ring Road. Additionally,
the major modification is consistent with the Promenade Mall Ring Road Enhancement
Agreement executed by the City Council on July 24, 2007.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA
Guidelines, the Planning Commission has considered the proposed Major Modification. The
Planning Commission has also reviewed 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 development plans for the Mall following approval of
the Development Agreement. Based on that review, the Planning Commission finds that the
proposed Major Modification for the Ring Road Enhancements 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.
Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Major Modification does not
involve significant new effects, do not change the baseline environmental conditions, and do not
represent new information of substantial importance which shows that the Major Modification
will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FEIR and Addendum.
The Ring Road Enhancement Plan does not include any expansion of existing uses or retail
square footage and therefore would nol result in any additional trip generation. The Ring Road
Plan will result in modified traffic patterns within the Mall property to improve pedestrian and
vehicle circulation. 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
Major Modification, and no additional environmental documentation is required.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan. doc
4
In addition, based on the findings set forth above, the proposed project is exempt from the
application of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by virtue of the categorical and
statutory exemptions set forth in the following sections of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code
Regs.) Section 15301, Class 1 Existing Facilities because the project consists of the minor
alteration of existing streets for the purpose of public safety. The Ring Road enhancements will
not result in the expansion of any use.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposed request and recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the Ring Road Enhancement Plan Major Modification.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 6
2. Promenade Mall Ring Road Enhancement Agreement - Blue Page 7
3. Plan Reductions, Ring Road Enhancement Plan - Blue Page 8
4. Detailed Project Description - Blue Page 9
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-_. - Blue Page 10
Draft Conditions of Approval
6. Initial Study - Blue Page 11
7. EIR Addendum - Blue Page 12
8. Conformed Copy of Notice of Determination for EIR Addendum - Blue Page 13
9. Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 14
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO. Mall Ring Rd Plan. doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO.1
VICINITY MAP
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
6
G1GG200 <lOO
~
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PROMENADE MALL RING ROAD ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENT
G:\Plarming\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
7
.
PROMENADE MALL RING ROAD ENHANCEMENT
AGREEMENT
This Promenade Mall Ring Road Eilhancement Agreement ("Agreement") is dated
as of July 24, 2007, and is entered into by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a general
law city in the State of California and Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., a California
limited partnership ("Developer"). In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein,
the parties agree as follows:
I. Recitals. Each of the parties agrees that this Agreement is made with respect
to the following facts and purposes which each agree are true and correct:
A. Developer is the owner of a portion of the Temecula Promenade Mall (the
"Promenade MaD") that is located on approximately 78 acres in the City and is depicted on
EJdUbit A. Depiction of the :\vl'",Jes ("MaIl Pronertv").
B. On February 21, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City ofTemecula
adopted Resolution No. 07-10 approving PA06-293 and PA06-l97 consisting of "I'>"v/al ofa
126,000 square foot expansion of the Promenade Mall in the area between Macy's and the
theaters as well as two parking structures, all of which are shown on J'xhibit A attached hereto
("MaIl Exnanslon,").
C. "East ParkinI!' Facilitv" means the public parking structure that wilI be
constructed by Developer to accommodate a minimwn of 936 public parking spaces as described
in more detail in Planning Application No. 06-293 (Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit) approved by Resolution No. 07-10 of the Planning Commission of the City on Febrwuy
21,2007. The East Parking Facility will be generally located adjacent to the Promenade Mall
between Macy's and Edwards Cinemas and across the Ring Road from the Bel Villaggio
Property.
D. Agency, Developer and F.C. Temecula, Inc. are parties to that certain
Owner Participation Agreement, dated as of July 24, 2007 (the "OP A''). Capitalized tenus not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the OP A.
E. The Redevelopment Agency of the City (the "Al!encv"), will purchase the
East Parking Facility and the Developer or its affiliate will construct the East Parking Facility all
in accordance with the terms of the OP A and an Acquisition Agreement to be entered into
between the Agency and the Developer.
F. There is a private road that surrounds the Mall Property and provides
access to the Promenade Mall buildings and various parcels around the Mall Property ("Rinl!
Road"). The Ring Road is shown on Exhibit B attached hereto, Depiction of Ring Road.
G. The parties desire the Ring Road to be enhanced so as to improve access
to the buildings on the Mall Property. improve access to various properties around the Mall
r '"1'''';/ and to make it easier for the public to use the Ring Road. It is, therefore, in the best
July 12, 2007
I
interests of the City and Developer to provide for the Ring Road enhancement work as provided
in this Agreement.
2. Rin.. Road Plannin~
A. Developer shall prepare plans for enhancement of the Ring Road which
will include the following: (1) reconfiguration of certain traffic lanes; (2) upgrades to traffic
signage and street markings; (3) closure and control of selected parking isles along the Ring
Road; (4) coordination of Ring Road traffic signals ("RiD.. Road Traffic Sit!J!au") with public
street signals; (5) enhancements to the pedestrian crossings along portions of the Ring Road; and
(6) upgrades to access points for certain surrounding 1""I'....les (as amended or modified from
time to time in accordance with this Agreement, the "Rinll Road Enhancement Plan" and the
work described therein being referred the herein as the "RinE Road Imnrovements'').
B. The City and Developer acknowledge and agree that completion of the
Ring Road hnprovements are of major importance to the City and that the Ring Road
hnprovements will significantly benefit the Ring Road Parties. City and Developer, however,
further acknowledge and agree that proceeding with the Ring Road hnprovements will1ake time
and will involve complex negotiations with many parties in order to obtain agreement on the
Ring Road Enhancement Plan satisfactory to the City, Developer and the Ring Road Parties.
The City and Developer shall worle diligently and in good faith in the preparation and negotiation
of the Ring Road Enhancement Plan. In the event the Ring Road Parties do not approve the Ring
Road Enhancement Plan as presented to them, the City agrees, on a best efforts basis, to work
with Developer and Ring Road Parties in order to make such necessary modifications to the Ring
Road Enhancement Plan (mcluding but not limited to the alteration of proposed worle because a
party has made unreasonable demands or been uncooperative to the point of delaying the
submission of proposed plans) to reasonably address the concerns of the Developer and Ring
Road Parties SO that an acceptable Ring Road Enhancement Plan can be approved by the City,
Developer and Ring Road Parties.
C. Developer shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the
approvals of the following companies: May Department Stores Company (now known as Macy's
West, Inc.), Sears. Roebuck and Co., J.C. Penney r '-r.':':es, Inc., and Edwards Theatres Circuit,
Inc. (collectively, the "ShoDDm.. Mall Pal1ies" and individually a "l!hoDDin.. Mall Partv").
Developer shall also use its commercially reasonable efforts obtain the approval of the owners of
the I'........:.:es that are adjacent to the Ring Road and opposite the Shopping Mall where such
consent is contmctually required for a given Ring Road Enhancement Plan which the Developer
intends to submit to the City Council for ....1'.~.'a1 (collectively, the "Out Parcel Parties" and
individually an "Out Parcel Partv''). The Shopping Mall Parties and the Out Parcel Parties
shall be collectively referred to as the "Rinl! Road Parties." During the course of developing
the Ring Road Enhancement Plan, the Developer and the' City shall meet and confer with the
Ring Road Parties concerning the contemplated modifications to the Ring Road with the
objective that an """,uj'.:ate Ring Road Enhancement Plan with input from the consultations
with the Ring Road Parties can be presented to the City Council as soon as possible following
the date of this Agreement for approval and the necessary construction of the Ring Road
hnprovements can thereafter proceed quickly.
luly 12,2007
2
- -
D. The Ring Road Enhancement Plan shall be approved by the Ring Road
Parties on or before March 15,2008 and shall be presented to the Planning Commission of the
City and the City Council for consideration and approval, conditional approval or rejection on or
before April 15, 2008. If the Council rejects the Ring Road Enhancement Plan, Developer shall
continue to diligently work with the Director of Public Works and the Ring Road Parties and
shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to continue to revise and p.......ut revised
enhancement plans to the Ring Road Parties and the City Council until an acceplable plan is
approved by the City Council. The Ring Road Enhancement Plan approved by the City Council
shall be the "APnroved Rinl? Road Enhancement Plan". The City Manager may extend the
date for such approvals without further action of the City Council. '
E. Developer shall prepare the Ring Road Enhancement Plan and obtain the
approvals of the Ring Road Parties at its sole cost and expense. Developer shall construct the
Ring Road Improvements at no cost to the City, provided however, notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in this Agreement, Developer shall not be required to spend more than an
aggregate of $2 Million on the costs of actual construction of the Ring Road Improvements
("Develooer'. Co.t''). The costs of design, construction management, insurance,judgments,
attorney's fees, or similar costs not directly related to construction of the Ring Road
Improvements shall not be included as part of the calculation ofwhal constitutes Developer's
Costs. As Developer incurs actual construction costs for the Ring Road Improvements,
Developer's Cost shall be reduced by such amounts.
F. The parties acknowledge that work regarding the traffic signals to installed
or modified under the Approved Ring Road Enhancement Plan should not be performed during
the holiday months from October through December. Subject to force majeure delays, the
scheduled completion date for such work is one (I) month after the completion of all other work
contemplated under the Approved Ring Road Enhancement Plan, but if such date falls within
October through December then the completion date shall be extended to January 31 thereafter.
The City and Developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement, effective as of the date the
traffic signal work is completed, under which the City shallllSSume responsibility for the
maintenance of such traffic signals at the City's sole cost and expense.
3. Jljn... Road Enhancement Plan Imolementation
A. Once the Ring Road Enhancement Plan has been approved by the City
Council and the Ring Road Parties (from which Developer is able to obtain consent as provided
in Section 2.C.), Developer shall diligently proceed with constroction drawings for the Approved
Ring Road Enhancement Plan and actual construction oCthe Ring Road Improvements set forth
in the Approved Ring Road Enhancement Plan and shall diligently complete the Ring Road
Improvements in accordance with the Approved Ring Road Enhancement Plan.
B. Developer shall regularly report to the Director of Public Works on the
progress of the construction drawings and the construction of the Ring Road Improvements.
Within five (5) business days of each of the following actions, Developer shall notify the
Director of Public Works of each action and provide the Director of Public Works with true
correct and complete copies of the agreements and documents pertaining to the action: (1)
entering into conttacts for the construction of one or more components of the Ring Road
luly 12,2007
3
Improvements; (2) placing an order for a traffic signal; (3) submission of change ordeIll by a
contractor; or (4) resolution of change orders with a contractor.
C. Developer shall complete the Ring Road Improvements described in the
Approved Ring Road Enhancement Plan and subject to the tenus and conditions of this
Agreement on or before March 26, 2009 subject to force majeure delays as defined in Section
5.1. provided, however, that such events shall not excuse perfonnance past the date of the
issuance by the City of the pennanent certificate of occupancy for the Mall Expansion that will
allow the Mall Expansion to be open for customers even if the tenant improvements for some
stores have not been completed (the ",Certificate of Oceun.nev'').
4. Securitv for Imnlement.tion of Annroved RiOl'! Road Enhancement Plan.
A. Pursuant to Article 4 of the OP A and the Acquisition Agreement referred
to therein, the Agency shall purchase from the Developer, or an affiliate of the Developer, the
East Parking Facility for a purchase price oUll million, which purchase price shall be paid in
two or more insta1lments (the "Purchase Price''). Agency will fund all or a portion of the
Purchase Price with the proceeds of tax allocation bonds ("Agency Bonds''). The OP A further
provides that the sum of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) (the "Holdback") will be held in an
account created and maintained by the Fiscal Agent for the Agency Bonds (the "Holdback
Account") to secure the completion of the Ring Road Improvements by the Developer.
1) No portion of the Holdback shall be used to pay for any portion of
the costs of the Ring Road Improvements.
2) Upon the approval of the Ring Road Enhancement Plan by the
Ring Road Parties and the City Council, the Holdback shall be reduced to the sum ofTwo
Million Dollars ($2,000,000)
3) The remaining balance in the Holdback shall be released upon: (1)
delivery of a certificate of completion from Developer and its engineer or contractor to the
Director of Public Works stating that the Ring Road Improvements have been completed in
accordance with the Approved Ring Road EnhancemCllt Plan and all applicable laws; and (2) the
Director of Public Work's written certification (not to be UIIl'ellSonably withheld) that the Ring
Road Improvements have been completed in accordance with the Approved Ring Road
Enhancement Plan and all applicable laws. The Ring Road Improvements shall be considered
completed ("Completed") if the work is sufficiently complete in accordance with the plans for
such Ring Road Improvements so that they may be utilized for their intended use and may be
subject to outstanding nonmaterial punch list items. The Director of Public Works shall issue his
decision within ten (10) business days ofreccipt of each of the Developer's certificates of
completion and shall cause a written certificate to be provided to the Agency and/or the Fiscal
Agent for the Agency Bonds, as required by any fiscal agent or indenture for the Agency Bonds
(the "Indenture"), which indicates that the conditions for release of the Holdback to the
Developer from the Holdback Account have been satisfied.
luly 12. 2007
4
4) If the conditions to the release of the remaining balance in the
Holdback have not been 5atisfied on or before April IS, 2011, the funds 5ha1l be released to the
Agency for any lawful use5 without any further obligations to Developer..
B. Developer shall also obtain for the benefit of the City a corporate
completion guarantee from Developer'5 affiliate, FOre5t City Enterprises, Inc. ("Guarantor"), to
secure the Developer's obligations to complete the Ring Road Improvements under this
Agreement ("Cumuletlon Guarantee"). The Completion Guarantee shall be in substantially the
fonn attached hereto as Exhibit C, provided that any changes from Exhibit C shall be approved
by the City Attorney.
C. In the event Developer bas not completed the Ring Road Improvements,
other than planned traffic signals. by January 31, 2009, as same may be extended due to force
majeure events, City shall have the right to send a notice to the Guarantor to demand completion
of said Ring Road Improvements pursuant to the Completion Guaranty. In the event Developer
bas not completed the traffic signals portion of the Ring Road Improvements by March 26, 2009,
as same may be extended due to force majeure events, City shall have the right to send a notice
to the Guarantor to demand completion of said Ring Road Improvemenls pursuant to the
Completion Guaranty.
D. If the Guarantor fails to diligently commence or complete the Ring Road
Improvements in accordance with the tenns of the Completion Guaranty, City shall have the
right, but not the obligation to complete the Ring Road Improvements as described in the
Approved Ring Road Enhancement Plan which have not been completed by Developer or
Guarantor in accordance with the tenus and conditions of this Agreement. Developer hereby
grants City along with its agents, contractors and independent contractors, a license to enter Ring
Road and such surrounding properties as necessary in order to construct the Ring Road
Improvements subject to the following tenns:
1) City shall provide Developer notice of the proposed construction
not less than IS days prior to the estimated start of construction.
2) During the collr5e of construction of the Ring Road Improvemen15,
City shall co~.. _~:. with Developer to provide updates concerning coJl5ttuction scheduling and
progress and shall respond to complaints and concerns of Developer and ils tenants in a
commercially reasonable manner.
3) During the collr5e of construction of the Ring Road Improvements,
Developer 5ha11 w..._":.= with the City and provide aU docwnents and information concerning
construction of the Ring Road Improvements completed or in progress prior to the City's take
over of construction.
4) In constructing the Ring Road Improvements, City shall employ, at
a minimwn, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by first class retail shopping
center operators engaged in coll5truction and management of similar improvements and shall
exercise diligence in the .....Sv....ance ofits work.
July t2, 2007
S
.
5) City agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless
Developer, its partners, owners, officers, directors, and employees (the "Indemnified Parties")
from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, mechanics
liens, or liability of any kind or nature which the Indemnified Parties may sustain or incur or
which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property
arising out of City's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform
the construction work for the Ring Road Improvements as set forth under the terms of this
Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence or wrongful conduct Df
Indemnified Parties. The obligations of City in this section with respect to the time during which
it is completing construction of the Ring Road Improvement shall continue after the City's
completion of the Ring Road Improvements in accordance with the Approvc:d Ring Road
Enhancement Plan, but any obligation hereunder shall terminate as to any incidents occurring
after the City completes the Ring Road Improvements in accordance with the Approved Ring
Road Enhancement Plan and Developer takes possession thereof.
6) All of the contractors retained by City, and their subcontractors,
shall procure and maintain for the duration of the construction of the Ring Road Improvements
general liability insurance in a policy amount of not less than $2 million. The policies shall
name the Developer and its officers and employees as additional insureds.
7) City shall not allow any liens to be placed upon the Malll\vl'v.;j
or Ring Road or any of the Ring Road Improvements arising from the construction of the Ring
Road Improvements and if any liens are placed on the Mall Property or Ring Road as a result of
the construction of 1he Ring Road Improvements, City sbalJ use its best efforts to remove said
liens as soon as practicable or cause such liens to be bonded over.
8) In the event that any tangible, physicall'.v/".....j of Developer or
other owner of Y'" y...;y within the Promenade Mall, or a tenant of Developer is damaged as a
direct result of the construction work of the Ring Road Improvements by City or one of its
contractors, City sba\1 be responsible for the prompt resolution of such claims in accordance with
commercially reasonable claims adjustment standards.
9) As part of the '"YY'" dll of the Ring Road Parties for the Ring Road
Improvements, Developer shall obtain their approval of the terms of this license to allow the City
to construct the Ring Road Improvements on their portions of the Ring Road.
10) Upon completion of the Ring Road Improvements work by City
in accordance with the Approved Ring Road Enhancement Plan, Developer shall resume
possession thereof and City shall have no obligation for maintenance or repairs to 1he Ring Road
Improvements except for the following traffic signals described under the Approved Ring Road
Enhancement Plan.
1 I) The City sbalJ submit to Developer invoices with commercially
reasonable documentation of 1he costs it bas incwred in constructing the Ring Road
Improvements, including but not limited to its costs of third party construction management,
insurance and any amounts necessary to fuIfill its indemnification obligations ("Citv's Cost to
Comolete"). The parties acknowledge and agree tbat the City's Costs to Complete 1he Ring
July 12,2007
6
Road Improvements in the event it takes over such construction could exceed the maximum
amount of the Developer's Cost and the Parties therefore agree that the City's Costs to Complete
under this section or the Completion Guaranty shall not be limited by such amount. Unless
Developer objects to the payment of such invoice, it shall pay such invoice within ten days of
receipt. Developer shall not unreasonably object to the payment of an invoice.
5, GeneraL
A. Notices. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) persollllI service
with return receipt or affidavit of delivery, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service,
such as, but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of
delivery, or (Hi) mailing in the United Stales Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid. return receipt
requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that
party may later designate by a written notice provided in accordance with this Section. Notice
shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specUied below or on the third business day
following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
City ofTemecuIa
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033 .
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
TemecuIa, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
To: Developer:
Temeculll Towne Center Associates. LP
C/O FOre& City Development
949 South Hope Street #200
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Attention: Brian Iones
With a copy to:
Forest City Enterprises, Inc.
50 Public Square. Ste 1360
Cleveland,OR 44113-2204
Attention: General Counsel
B. J,mtire Al!reement. Modifications. This Agreement and the documents
referenced herein contain the complete expression of the whole agreement between the parties
with respect to the obligations set forth herein, and there are no promises, ...I'.....,~tations,
agreements. warranties or inducements. either expressed verbally or implied, .....""..' as are fully
set forth herein. This Agreement cannot be enlarged, modified, or changed in any respect except
by written agreement between the parties. No altemtion, supplement, modification or amendment
of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all of the parties hereto. The
July 12, 2007
7
..
City Manager is authorized to enter into any amendments to this Agreement without any further
action by the City Council.
C. Aoolicable Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been entered
into and shall. in all respects. be interpreted. constroed. enforced and governed by and under the
laws of the State of California.
D. Indeoendent Lel!a.l Counsel. Each party acknowledges that it had retained
independent lega.l counsel of its own choice to review this Agreement and that prior to the
execution hereof each party has had the .opportunity to review the tenns of this Agreement with
its counsel and is entering into this Agreement after such review.
E. Va.liditv of Al!reement. AU parties agree that this Agreement is legal.
valid and binding on each party and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
F. Bindim, on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to
the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs.legal...t'.......u;..;;ves, successors.
assigns, executors and administrators.
G. ,Attornevs' Fees. If any legal action or any arbitration or other proceeding
is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute. breach,
default or misrepresentation in cv.~~_;;on with any of the provisions of this Agreement, the
successful or prevailing party or parties shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and
other costs and expenses incurred in that action Dr proceeding in addition to any other relief to
which it or they may be entitled.
H. Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
I. Force Maieure Delavs. Nonperformance of any of the conditions or
covenants herein by any party hereto shall be excused when.... L_.ance is prevented or delayed
by reason of any of the folIowing forces reasonably beyond the control of such party: acts of
God, strike, war, lockout, labor trouble, reasonable inability to secure materials or labor,
unreasonable delay by II governmental entity in the issuance of any required 6- . ~_...mental
permit, license or approval, act of nature (including but not limited to hurricane, earthquake,
windstonn, flood, wildfire, or other severe weather or environmental condition) insurrection,
riot, casualty, acts of public enemy, governmental restrictions, litigation initiated by a party other
than a party hereto or its affiliate, unreasonable acts or failures to act of any governmental
agency or entity. including the Developer and the City, or unreasonable delays of any contractor,
subcontractor or supplier. In such event, nonperformance shall be excused and the time of
performance shall be extended by the number of day~ the performance is delayed or prevented;
provided, however, that nothing contained in this Section shall excuse the performance of any act
rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to
perform the act.
J. Counternarts and Fax Transmission. 1ms Agreement may be executed in
counterparts and exchanged by facsimile, and all original or facsimile counterparts, when taken
together, shall be valid as one instrument as though signed in original on a single page.
July t2,2007
8
~
..
K. Exhibits. The foUowing Exhibits are attached hereto and incOIporated
herein by this reference as though set forth in fuU:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Depiction of Mall Property
Depiction of Ring Road
Completion Guarantee
L. Authority to Execute this Al!reCment The person or per.rons executing
this Agreement on behalf of a party warrants and 1..............18 that he or she has the authority to
execute this Agreement on behalf of the party and has the authority to bind that party to the
.._f.....ance of its obligations hereunder.
(signatures on next page)
lu1y 12, 2007
~
9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
Chuck washington
Mayor
ATTEST:
IuIy 12.2007
10
TEMECULA TOWNE CENTER
ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSIDP
By F. C. Temecula, Inc., a California
corporation, its General partner
By 11-- V ---,
Name: V ISvtI'G-...<< S~I"""
Title: VIe.... ~ e.r..~
July 12,2007
11
.
EXlllBIT A
DEPICTION OF MALL PROPERTIES
(attached)
1uly 12,2007
12
i
I J
.
I
) .
~
RING ROAD AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT A -
DEPICTION OF MALL PROPERTY
1 r
i:
t!
I
'.
( ~.
;
!
...
!
, i
I~
I
-
,r--
l'n'llf.
I' .
""~r
n
~~
lHE PROMfNADf
IN TEMECUlA
lEtI(O.U, TftN <:ENtER ASSOCWES
141 SOU1M t(OPf SlREET. SU1E 100
LOS 1rHCD.fS. CAlFORNfA toOl~
"'''''1
>-
.,.:~ \<(";.1 1__
.j~ . ~~
,11-;':" I'
i ~~ ",.
.
EXHIBITB
DEPICTION OF RING ROAD
(attached)
luly 12, 2007
13
Ring Road
3
I
. .,
,
,
,-
I-
I
I
1
I
(
,
,
....
--,
,
I
I
,
I
:: ~
,
--'
,
.J
~.
J-
.:
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.'
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
..
" ,.--........-
YNBZ /
\ ri
\
ROAU
h
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPLETION GUARANTY
(attached'
luly 12, 2007
14
.
COMPLETION GUARANTEE
TIllS COMPLETION GUARANTEE (this "Guarantee") is executed as of the 24th day of
July, 2007, by FOREST CITY ENTERPRISES, INC., an Ohio corporation, having an address of
Terminal Tower, Suite 1100, SO Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 441 13 ("Guarantor"), to and in favor
of the CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, a general law city in the State of California, having
an address of 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590 ("City"). Capitalized terms
not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Ring Road Agreement (as
defined in Paragraph B below).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
A. Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., a California limited partnership
("Developer"), is the owner of that certain regional shopping center commonly known as The
Promenade at Temecula located in Temecula, California (the "Shopping Center"). Developer intends
to construct an expansion of the Shopping Center consisting of 126,000 square feet of additional
retail and additional parking structures (the "Mall Expansion").
B. In connection with the Mall Expansion, Developer and the City entered into that
certain Ring Road Enhancement Agreement, dated as of July 24, 2007 (the "Ring Road Agreement"),
which provides, among other things, for the right and obligation of Developer to construct and/or
install certain Ring Road Improvements.
C. A condition of the Ring Road Agreement is the execution and delivery of this
Guarantee by Guarantor in favor of the City.
D. Developer is an affiliate of Guarantor, and Guarantor will derive substantial benefit
from the aforedescribed transaction.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the foregoing Preliminary Statements, which are incorporated herein and
made B part hereof, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, Guarantor enters into the following agreement
1. Guarantor hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees and
promises to the City that the "Ouaranteed 1m,.... _...cnts" (M hcreinafter defined) will be
constructed, completed and paid for, as applicable, as described in and in accordance with thc Ring
Road Agreement, free and clear from all defects and liens, and in compliance with all applicable laws
(collective[y,1he "Construction Requirements"). For purposes hereof, "Guaranteed Improvements"
shal[ mean (a) the construction and completion of the Ring Road Improvements described in the
Approved Ring Road Enhancement Plan, other than the Ring Road Traffic Signals, subject to
punchlist items, on or before January 3[, 2009; (b) the construction and completion of the Ring Road
Traffic Signals and any remaining punchlist items in connection with the Ring Road Improvements
on or before MIlICh 26, 2009 ("Completion Date"); and (c) the payment of City Cost to Complete (as
hereinafter defined).
2. If; following a failure by Developer ta (a) construct and/or complete the Guaranteed
Improvements in accordance with the Construction Requirements when required, or (b) pay all costs
.
of constrUction relating to the Guaranteed Improvements, then, upon the written demand of the City
to Guarantor, Guarantor shall promptly commence and diligently pursue completion of the
Guaranteed Improvements in accordance with the Constluction Requirements and Section) hereof,
other than the perfonnance or cure of those conditions or defaults of Developer that are purely
personal to Developer and not capable of being perfonned or eured by Guarantor. In addition,
pursuant to Section 4.D. of the Ring Road Agreement, if the Guaranteed Improvements have not
been completed by the Completion Date, the City shall have the right to complete, at Guarantor's
expense, those Ring Road Improvements which bave not been completed in accordance with the
Construction Requirements ("City Cost to Complete") without giving Guarantor the option to cure.
Guarantor agrees to pay the City Cost to Complete within ten (10) days of receipt of invoices
showing the costs incurred by the City along with such other comrneroially reasonable
documentation of the City Cost to Complete.
The obligations referred to in this Section 2 are hereinafter referred to collectively as the
"Guaranteed Obligations" and individually as a "Guaranteed Obligation". Except as otherwise
expressly set forth In this Guarantee with '_'Y_~ to payments to third parties in connection with the
consllUctlon and completion of the Guaranteed Improvements or the payment of the City Cost to
Complete, this Guarantee is a guaranty of perfonnance only and not a guaranty of payment or
collection.
3. Guarantor agrees that the City may exeroise or not exercise any remedy or waiver of
any right under the Ring Road Agreement without notice to, without consent of, and without
affecting the liability of Guarantor hereunder.
4. Before calling upon Guarantor for payment or perfonnance of any Guaranteed
Obligations, the City need not resort to, or exhaust its remedies, if any, against, Developer or against
any other party or parties liable thereon. If Guarantor fails to promptly perfonn the Guaranteed
Obligations as required hereunder, the City may pursue any action at law or in equity against
Guarantor. Guarantor further waives any right to require City to join Developer in any action
brought hereunder or to commence any action against or obtain any judgment against Developer or to
pursue any other remedy or enforce any other right. Guarantor further agrees that nothing contained
herein or otherwise shall prevent City from pursuing concurrently or successively all rights and
remedies available to it at law andlor in equity or under the Guaranteed Obligations and the exercise
of any of its rights or the completion of any of its remedies shall not constitute a discharge of
Guarantor's obligations hereunder, it being the pwpose and Intent of Guarantor that the obligations
of Guarantor hereunder shalt be absolute, independent and unconditional under any and all
circumstances whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Guarantor hereby
expressly waives any and all benefits and defenses under California Civil Code ("CC") Sections 2787
to 2855, inclusive, and 2899, 2953 and 3433, including, withoutlimill!tion, the right to require City
to (i) proceed against Developer or any other guarantor or pledgor, (ii) proceed against or exhaust
any security or collateral City may hold, or (Hi) pursue any other right or remedy for the benefit of
Guarantor.
5. None of the Guarantor's obligations under this Guarantee or any remedy for the
enforcement thereof shall be impaired, modified, changed or released in any manner whatsoever by
any impainnenl, modification, change, release or limitation of the liability of Developer under the
Guaranteed Obligations or by reason of the bankruptcy of Developer or by reason of any creditor or
bankruptcy proceeding instituted by or against Developer. In addition, the liability of Guarantor
shall in no way be released, mitigated or otherwise affected by (a) the release or discharge of
2
..
Developer in any creditors' proceeding, receivership, bankruptcy or other proceedings, or the
commencement or pendency of any such proceedings; (b) the impairment, limitation or modification
of the liability of Developer or the estate of developer in bankruptcy or of any remedy for the
enforcement of Developer's liability under any instrument, evidencing any Guaranteed Obligation. or
under any other instrument executed and delivered in connection therewith, resulting from the
operation of any presenl or future provision of the United States Bankruptcy Code or other statute or
from a decision in any court; or (c) any assignment or transfer of any instrument evidencing any
Guaranteed Obligation by operation of law or otherwise.
6. All notices, demands, requests, approvals, consents and other communications
(collectively, "Notices") which may be required or are desired to be given hereunder shall be in
writing and shall be hand delivered" sent by certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested, or sent by
overnight courier service, designated for next-day delivery, as follows:
If to Guarantor:
Forest City Enterprises,lnc.
Teoninal Tower, Suite 1360
50 Public Square
Cleveland, Ohio 44 113-2267
Attention: General Counsel
With a copy to:
Forest City Development California, Inc.
949 S. Hope Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90015
Attention: Brian Jones
If 10 the City:
City ofTemecula
P.O. Box 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
T emecula, California 92590
Attention: city Manager
Either party hereto may designate a different address to which or pc=n to whom Notices
shall be directed by wrinen notice given in the same manner and directed to the other at its address
hereinabove set forth. Any Notice given hereunder shall be deemed received when delivered if
delivered by hand, one (I) business day after delivery if sent overnight delivery service, designated
for ncxt.<fay delivery, and three (3) business days after mailing if sent by certified U.S. mail.
7. This Guarantee is effi:ctive immediately and shall continue until the completion of the
Guaranteed Improvements in accordance with the Construction Requirements. Guarantor waives
notice of the acceptance hereof. waives demand for payment and protest relative to each Guaranteed
Obligation (other than those required under this Guarantee), and waives all notices (other than those
required under this Guarantee) to which Guarantor might othelWisc be entitled by law. This
Guarantee shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event of
any action or proceeding relating to the enforcement of obligations of the undersigned hereunder by
the City, the undersigned agrees to pay the City's reasonable attorney's fees in connection therewith.
This Guarantee shall inure to the benefit of the City, its successors and assigns, and to any other
holder of any Guaranteed Obligation, and shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of
Guarantor. At the request of Guarantor, the City agrees to deliver an instrument evidencing the
tertnination of this Guarantee following termination according to the tcnns of this Guarantee.
3
I
8. Guarantor and the City intend and believe that each provision in this Guarantee
comports with all applicable local, state and federal laws and judicial decisions. However, if any
provision or provisions, or any portion thereof, in this Guarantee is found by a court of law to be in
violation of any applicable local, state or federal ordinance, statute, law, administrative or judicial
decision, or public policy, and if such court should declare such portion, provision or provisions of
this Guarantee to be illegal, invalid, unlawful, void or unenforceable as written, then it is the intent of
Guarantor and the City that such portion, provision or provisions shall be given force to the fullest
possible extent that they are legal, valid and enforceable, that the remainder of this Guarantee shall
be construed as if such illegal, invalid, unlawful, void or unenforceable portion, provision or
provisions were not contained therein, and that the rights, obligations and interest of City under the
remainder of this Guarantee shall continue in full force and effect.
9. Guarantor makes the following representations and warranties to the City:
(a) Guarantor is duly fonned, validly existing and in good standing in the State of
Ohio and has qualified to do business and is in good standing in any state in which it is necessary in
the conduct of its business.
(b)
of this Guarantee.
Guarantor maintains an office at the address set forth in the initial paragraph
(c) The execution, delivery, and performance by Guarantor of this Guarantee
does not and will not contravene or conflict with (i) any laws, order, rule, regulation, writ, injunction
or decree now in effect of any government authority or court having jurisdiction over Guarantor, (il)
any contractual restriction binding on or affecting Guarantor or Guarantor's ,"-r-':, or assets which
may adversely affect Guarantor's ability to fulfill its obligations under this Guarantee, (iii) the
instruments creating any trust holding title to any assets included in Guarantor's financial statements,
or (iv) the organizational or other documents of Guarantor.
(d) This Guarantee creates legal, valid, and binding obligations of Guarantor
enforceable in accordance with its terms.
(e) There is no action, proceeding, or investigation pending or, to the knowledge
of Guarantor, threatened or affecting Guarantor, which may materially and adversely affect
Guarantor's ability to fulfill its obligations under this Guarantee.
(f) AlIIO-K, IG-Q and/or other financial statements previously furnished to the
City to accurately reflect the fmancial condition and operation of Guarantor in all material respects as
of the date of this Guarantee.
(g) No consent, approval or authorization of or declaration, registration or filing
with any governmental authority or nongovernmental person or entity, including any creditor or
shareholder of Guarantor, is required in cOMeetion with the execution, delivery and performance of
this Guarantee.
(h) The execution, delivery and ....l;..u.ance of this Guarantee has not
constituted and will no! constitute upon the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, a breach or
default under any other agreement to which Guarantor is a party or may be bound or affected.
4
.
10. This Guarantee constitutes the entire agreement between Guarantor and the City with
respect to the matters referred to herein, and no modification or waiver of any of the tenns hereof
shall be effective unless in writing, signed by the party to be charged with such modification or
waiver.
11. Guarantor's liability hereunder for any or all of the Guaranteed Obligations shall
automatically tenninate upon the earlier to occur of (a) the date the Guaranteed Obligations are
completed or satisfied in accordlUK:C with the Ring Road Agreement, or (b) the date of any
tennination of the Ring Road Agreement due to any reason other than due to the default beyond any
applicable notice and/or cure periods by the Developer of its obligations under the Ring Road
Agreement
Guarantor has executed this Completion Guarantee as of the date first written above.
GUARANTOR:
FOREST CITY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
an Ohio corporation
By:
Name: Charles A. Ratner
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
H:IW97IDIOITcmccula12142\Corna>IcCionGuarWy062107.doc
s
a
COMPLETION GUARANTEE
THIS COMPLETION GUARANTEE (this "Guarantee") is executed as of the 24th day of
July, 2007, by FOREST CITY ENTERPRISES, INC., an Ohio corporation, having an address of
Terminal Tower, Suite 1100,50 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44113 ("Guarantor"), to and in favor
of the CITY OF TEMECULA, CALlFORN[A, a general law city in the State of California, having
an address of 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590 ("City"). Capitalized terms
not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Ring Road Agreement (as
defined in Paragraph B below).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
A. Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., a California limited partnership
("Developer"), is the owner of that certain regional shopping center commonly known as The
Promenade at Temecula located in Temecula, California (the "Shopping Center"). Developer intends
to construct an expansion of the Shopping Center consisting of 126,000 square feet of additional
retail and additional parking structures (the "Mall Expansion").
B. [n connection with the Mall Expansion, Developer and the City entered into that
certain Ring Road Enhancement Agreement, dated as of July 24, 2007 (the "Ring Road Agreement"),
which provides, among other things, for the right and obligation of Developer to construct and/or
install certain Ring Road Improvements.
C. A condition of the Ring Road Agreement is the execution and delivery of this
Guarantee by Guarantor in favor of the City.
D. Developer is an affiliate of Guarantor, and Guarantor will derive substantial benefit
from the aforedescribed transaction.
AGREEMENT
[n consideration of the foregoing Preliminary Stat~ments, which are incorporated herein and
made a part hereof, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, Guarantor enters into the following agreement.
I. Guarantor hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees and
promises to the City that the "Guaranteed Improvements" (as hereinafter defined) will be
constructed, completed and paid for, as applicable, as described in and in accordance with the Ring
Road Agreement, free and clear from all defects and liens, and in compliance with all applicable laws
(collectively, the "Construction Requirements"). For pUlpOses hereof, "Guaranteed Improvements"
shall mean (a) the construction and completion of the Ring Road Improvements described in the
Approved Ring Road Enhancement Plan, other than the Ring Road Traffic Signals, subject to
punchlist items, on or before January 31, 2009; (b) the construction and completion of the Ring Road
Traffic Signals and any remaining punchlist items in connection with the Ring Road Improvements
on or before March 26, 2009 ("Completion Date"); and (c) the payment of City Cost to Complete (as
hereinafter defined).
2. If, following a failure by Developer to (a) construct and/or complete the Guaranteed
Improvements in accordance with the Construction Requirements when required, or (b) pay all costs
.
of construction relating to the Guaranteed Improvements, thcn, upon the written demand of the City
to Guarantor, Guarantor shall promptly commence and diligently pursue completion of the
Guaranteed Improvements in accordance with the Construction Requirements and Section I hereof,
other than the performance or cure of those conditions or defaults of Developer that are purely
personal to Developer and not capable of being performed or cured by Guarantor. In addition,
pursuant to Section 4.D. of the Ring Road Agrcement, if the Guaranteed Improvements have not
been completed by the Completion Date, the City shall have the right to complete, at Guarantor's
expense, those Ring Road Improvements which have not been completed in accordance with the
Construction Requirements ("City Cost to Complete") without giving Guarantor the option to cure.
Guarantor agrees to pay the City Cost to Complete within ten (10) days of receipt of invoices
showing the costs incurred by the City along with such other commercially reasonable
documentation of the City Cost to Complete.
The obligations referred to in this Section 2 are hereinafter referred to collectively as the
"Guaranteed Obligations" and individually as a "Guaranteed Obligation". Except as otherwise
expressly set forth in this Guarantee with respect to payments to third parties in connection with the
construction and completion of the Guaranteed Improvements or the payment of the City Cost to
Complete, this Guarantee is a guaranty of performance only and not a guaranty of payment or
collection.
3. Guarantor agrees that the City may exercise or not exercise any remedy or waiver of
any right under the Ring Road Agreement without notice to, without consent of, and without
affecting the liability of Guarantor hereunder.
4. Before calling upon Guarantor for payment or performance of any Guaranteed
Obligations, the City need not resort to, or exhaust its remedies, if any, against, Developer or against
any other party or parties liable thereon. If Guarantor fails to promptly t'~. fv.... the Guaranteed
Obligations as required hereunder, the City may pursue any action at law or in equity against
Guarantor. Guarantor further waives any right to require City to join Developer in any action
brought hereunder or to commence any action against or obtain any judgment against Developer or to
pursue any other remedy or enforce any other right. Guarantor further agrees that nothing contained
herein or otherwise shall prevent City from pursuing concurrently or successively all rights and
remedies available to it at law and/or in equity or under the Guaranteed Obligations and the exercise
of any of its rights or the completion of any of its remedies shall not constitute a discharge of
Guarantor's obligations hereunder, it being the purpose and intent of Guarantor that the obligations
of Guarantor hereunder shall be absolute, independent and unconditional under any and all
circumstances whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Guarantor hereby
expressly waives any and all benefits and defenses under California Civil Code ("CC") Sections 2787
to 2855, inclusive, and 2899, 2953 and 3433, including, without limitation, the right to require City
to (i) proceed against Developer or any other guarantor or pledgor, (ii) proceed against or exhaust
any security or collateral City may hold, or (iii) pursue any other right or remedy for the benefit of
Guarantor.
5. None of the Guarantor's obligations under this Guarantee or any remedy for the
enforcement thereof shall be impaired, modified, changed or released in any manner whatsoever by
any impairment, modification, change, release or limitation of the liability of Developer under the
Guaranteed Obligations or by reason of the bankruptcy of Developer or by reason of any creditor or
bankruptcy proceeding instituted by or against Developer. In addition, the liability of Guarantor
shall in no way be released, mitigated or otherwise affected by (a) the release or discharge of
2
Developer in any creditors' proceeding, receivership, bankruptcy or other proceedings, or the
commencement or pendency of any such proceedings; (b) the impairment, limitation or modification
of the liability of Developer or the estate of developer in bankruptcy or of any remedy for the
enforcement of Developer's liability under any instrument, evidencing any Guaranteed Obligation, or
under any other instrument executed and delivered in connection therewith, resulting from the
operation of any present or future provision of the United States Bankruptcy Code or other statute or
from a decision in any court; or (c) any assignment or transfcr of any instrument evidencing any
Guaranteed Obligation by operation of law or otherwise.
6. All notices, demands, requests, approvals, consents and other communications
(collectively, ''Notices'') which may be required or are desired to be given hereunder shall be in
writing and shall be hand delivered, sent by certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requcsted, or sent by
overnight courier service, designated for next-day delivery, as follows:
If to Guarantor:
With a copy to:
If to the City:
Forest City Enterprises, Inc.
Terminal Tower, Suite 1360
50 Public Square
Cleveland, Ohio 44113.2267
Attention: General Counsel
Forest City Development California, Inc.
949 S. Hope Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90015
Attention: Brian Jones
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
Either party hereto may designate a different address to which or person to whom Notices
shall be directed by written notice given in the same manner and directed to the other at its address
hereinabove set forth. Any Notice given hereunder shall be deemed received when delivered if
delivered by hand, one (I) business day after delivery if sent overnight delivery service, designated
for next-day delivery, and three (3) business days after mailing if sent by certified U.S. mail.
7. This Guarantee is effective immediately and shall continue until the completion of the
Guaranteed Improvements in accordance with the Construction Requirements. Guarantor waives
notice of the acceptance hereof, waives demand for payment and protest relative to each Guaranteed
Obligation (other than those required under this Guarantee), and waives all notices (other than those
required under this Guarantee) to which Guarantor might otherwise be entitled by law. This
Guarantee shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event of
any action or proceeding relating to the enforcement of obligations of the undersigned hereunder by
the City, the undersigned agrees to pay the City's reasonable attorney's fees in connection therewith.
This Guarantee shall inure to the benefit of the City, its successors and assigns, and to any other
holder of any Guaranteed Obligation, and shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of
Guarantor. At the request of Guarantor, the City agrees to deliver an instrument evidencing the
termination of this Guarantee following termination according to the terms of this Guarantee.
3
8. Guarantor and the City intend and believe that each provision in this Guarantee
comports with a1l applicable local, state and federal laws and judicial decisions. However, if any
provision or provisions, or any portion thereof, in this Guarantee is found by a court of law to be in
violation of any applicable local, state or federal ordinance, statute, law, administrative or judicial
decision, or public policy, and if such court should declare such portion, provision or provisions of
this Guarantee to be illegal, invalid, unlawful, void or unenforceable as written, then it is the intent of
Guarantor and the City that such portion, provision or provisions shall be given force to the fullest
possible extent that they are legal, valid and enforceable, that the remainder of this Guarantee shall
be construcd as if such illegal, invalid, unlawful, void or unenforceable portion, provision or
provisions were not contained therein, and that the rights, obligations and interest of City under the
remainder of this Guaranteesha1l continue in full force and effect.
9. Guarantor makes the following representations and warranties to the City:
(a) Guarantor is duly fonned, validly existing and in good standing in the State of
Ohio and has qualified to do business and is in good standing in any state in which it is necessary in
the conduct of its business.
(b)
of this Guarantee.
Guarantor maintains an office at the address set forth in the initial paragraph
(c) The execution, delivery, and performance by Guarantor of this Guarantee
does not and will not contravene or conflict with (i) any laws, order, rule, regulation, writ, injunction
or decree now in effect of any government authority or court having jurisdiction over Guarantor, (ii)
any contractual restriction binding on or affecting Guarantor or Guarantor's property or assets which
may adversely affect Guarantor's ability to fulfi1l its obligations under this Guarantee, (iii) the
instruments creating any trust holding title to any assets included in Guarantor's financial statements,
or (iv) the organizational or other documents of Guarantor.
(d) This Guarantee creates legal, valid, and binding obligations of Guarantor
enforceable in accordance with its terms.
(e) There is no action, proceeding, or investigation pending or, to the knowledge
of Guarantor, threatened or affecting Guarantor, which may materia1ly and adversely affect
Guarantor's ability to fulfi1l its obligations under this Guarantee.
(f) All IO-K, IO-Q and/or other financial statements previously furnished to the
City to accurately reflect the financial condition and operation of Guarantor in all material respects as
of the date of this Guarantee.
(g) No consent, approval or authorization of or declaration, registration or filing
with any governmental authority or nongovernmental person or entity, including any creditor or
shareholder of Guarantor, is required in connection with the execution, delivery and performance of
this Guarantee.
(h) The execution, delivery and peifonnance of this Guarantee has not
constituted and will not constitute upon the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, a breach or
default under any other agreement to which Guarantor is a party or may be bound or affected.
4
..
10. This Guarantee constitutes the entire agreement between Guarantor and the City with
respect to the matters referred to herein, and no modification or waiver of any of the terms hereof
shall be effective unless in writing, signed by the party to be charged with such modification or
waiver.
II. Guarantor's liability hereunder for any or all of the Guaranteed Obligations shall
automatically terminate upon the earlier to occur of (a) the date the Guaranteed Obligations are
completed or satisfied in accordance with the Ring Road Agreement, or (b) the date of any
termination of the Ring Road Agreement due to any reason other than due to the default beyond any
applicable notice and/or cure periods by the Developer of its obligations under the Ring Road
Agreement.
Guarantor has executed this Completion Guarantee as of the dale first written above.
GUARANTOR:
FOREST CITY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
an Ohio corporation
cy
By:
Name: Charles A. Ratner
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
H:\W971D1G\Temecula 121421Completiun Guaranty 06 07 07.doc
5
.
MINUTE ACTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
DATE:
July 26, 2007
July 24, 2007
MEETING OF:
AGENDA .
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
21
Temecula Promenade Mall East Parkina Facililv Owner Particioation
Aareement. Ground Sublease. Rina Raad Enhancement Aareement. and
Parkina Manaaement Aareement
The motion was made by Council Member Comerchero, and seconded by Council Member Roberts,
to approve staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 The City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RES9LUTION NO. 07-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS FOR THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE
OF THE EAST PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE SECTION 33445
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero. Edwards, Naggar, Roberts,
Washington
NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCil MEMBERS None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS None
R:JMinute OrdefSlOn407
The motion was made by Council Member Comerchero, and seconded by Council Member
Roberts, to approve staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
21.2 The City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 07-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, A GROUND SUBLEASE, AND A
PARKING MANAGEMErfr AGREEMENT FOR THE EAST PARKING FACILITY, AND
APPROVING THE RING ROAD ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
PROMENADE MAll
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts,
Washington
NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCil MEMBERS None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS None
The motion was made by Agency Member Comerchero, and seconded by Agency Member
Roberts, to approve staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
21.3 The Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA07-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS FOR THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS BY THE AGENCY FOR THE
PURCHASE OF THE EAST PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY PURSUANT TO HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445
R:JMinute OIderslO72<107
-
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Washington,
Edwards
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS None
ABSTAIN: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS None
The motion was made by Agency Member Comerchero. and seconded by Agency Member
Roberts, to approve staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDA nON:
21.4 The Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 07-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN OWNER
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, A GROUND SUBLEASE FOR THE EAST PARKING
FACIUTY, AND A PARKING MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE EAST PARKING
FACILITY
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts. Washington,
Edwards
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
AGENCY MEMBERS: None
AGENCY MEMBERS None
ABSTAIN: 0
AGENCY MEMBERS None
The motion was made by Agency Member Comerchero, and seconded by Agency Member
Roberts, to approve staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
21.5 The Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 07-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING
CONSULTANTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF TAX
ALLOCATION BONDS FOR PARKING FACILITIES AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO
R:lMinute OrdeIlilO72407
.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Washington,
Edwards
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS None
ABSTAIN: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS None
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECUIA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Agency Secretary for the City of Temecula Redevelopment
Agency, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, under penalty of pe~ury, the foregoing to be the official action taken
by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency at the above meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 26'" day of July, 2007.
I
~
[SEAL]
R:lMinute OlderslOn-407
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PLAN REDUCTIONS
RING ROAD ENHANCEMENT PLAN
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
8
.:
J
L
I~Si
lIiEi-
U~igi
:
------------
/ ' ......,,,
(J,[, \
\~~I~Ji
\ "
1 il:
~ ! IIi
Ii! Iii
ijilli~! :!
~I .,
::;: :
\ \",
.. \ \
J?', \
M~....'.'~I/
I I . I
I V
~..
Q.
-<
"I
~ .
~I
"
-
Ii
~ i
~ .K
~! ,;~ I
il~!I:i'
u.! -=.
iii; HI
i I I I I
I a i i ~ i
; j j ~ I !
. .~ ~~I
.~i
MADWta NOTmII
__IM_-...... M:flYITla.......__1'O __n.. _....__.........
=-~iT"::~~~t,:;.-irf>.TlI:.1!JIl~........._-
I. ...,....'..'.IO__,_-..:-.-........A'mor....."... __~fiU..'
W'~'_"'O.I' __. _''''~'_''I' "'Y.- _"II" .......""""'.
"~'" _ StIU. -.....: _T __ AI,\. tnvIl.. MJ.IAT _..- ~.. IVl nm_ A
,,'~[I"''''lUT.
l. _1....on_nu.IIJI'U-....~I.
'. _OIlIt. ...-.ICAaL.~.....OI_lItSl_lOl-.'~ITlIlII~...
:='~,.;,-::m'".:.~~:;..~~.n!:=&.QIt.~":'.._T
.. ....._,.........._lHIUl_~IIION....II[II_e,Y,L__.""L__.
'" DOlllClll...-.ooltr _ ~ lmlTIn _T ~ fl.u...w: ImI-'Y PUaII_'"
.........901T."M,.QIIO'IIC'TIlI"___nIUCOl:Jt.. _.
,. .~'_CIY'L...'_......._ltlOlT>ll:CJn.-...',....,C__.
.,11'lNQJlTlf'ICATI..."~"1I.lF__""I"_.11Il1HE_9UO"'"
.......PlIIIl1l'" 1'-" M llUlLDl"_'T. Illm"CATI...........lOlLflC._.
1U'I.T1.../fCI..........."OSI'!',U.-...a.
'. ,,__IIC'T,..._,IU..CW1IG__,.lU.t__1Ut_~""".
.. __..-..._lII_II...~TI_f1I'_-.""_IO~
lMUTl..TI..."'WOlN.AGlIIC.IM'I'lIlV__.lh/OIllo.,_,OI. ftloaI"lH!:
'~-..cTI"'_"""'C_Il'TUl",_""'e..., . ..,...-...llCUCII!:
_Tn....'.._T1H_IlIlIT",CATI.IlIAT_'......lmIlDCJIO_
'llOlM_TI_"nc-.III_ID'LJI_.
t. __IKALL_lNnc.....IC_l8'JI!T>OT.TlDaT.._lII_
-.,py'..',"otHUIT____ I~WI. 1l4lt -"I....... _...,..-
TO""LJI'HI_'TQ.C/IUHI:I:_~""".""'IC_~~ (",)_."
lO._IoIl"Ut.<PO.......lE_tl1l4._....T'.lF_'._ImI_CDIIPICUTO
_r_tl.<I'I:~_I'" _ IIIITMlLITflU'llNll_It,.lI..._.
ll.__l!IIlICTlnT'G1....... (fIl.lIlt.IIlITHlIT.LIII'mI'l'O. '_IlL'''._-'lOIt..<.
_.TMD._...._IMTI._I._"lIlCITYCIIl[l[PlII"'TO
nc_.....""..._ICtl. ___4.lII_'Cll..lCt_.........V1_
"'".T1G11...--"TH_lIIIIE\IlIf,ONDEY.c:a,.,._U.'.C.
'l.nu...1!JIl1.....,.........._.I'UCID...l;ll.ltr""_lII'IIL__....._~"
_.1lmI1I._IL.__C1C1.rmll."...1UI.1IL. "_....,III_ltI_U'lIH
:!~~~~,\'M.~T_~~iL~~:r=~~~~
lJ._.....DIlA_...u..~_IL___.~Il/If...,.ilIJ.IJI.
~llll:___-.a... 'IPI<)lIJltDno~ _'M,..___.-t,a_
IILT_lll..._I'IIIO:. .... _,.._.nac.
'4.M'T""",.~rI'lIItlIGII_rI'ncCl1'l'OtItrm,
II. rr"'ll'" OUI4AlIH'lTlI A '_.-u'r" .To.o.r__"~_(I.')-.....
_,TID"'flt:....,C_IlIl'_".fUI\WIUUCIVIL__.1l1L__.CII
_'~I" .....Irr_ _ _rill. tI.lIIU lMlIlO' 1M 'lllTlColl. IC'_.
U",,",,'_CIYILDII_,",Ll_LMG~IHIU,.""[r_"lCAn"''''''lUIlNl1
_Iu...n.... _ ""I',e 1U'I..,ac Il/If _'lIIID. 1IC IU'IUJGII (11TH JI[![l'[I;I '" lIE...
.....L('ICI.)-.......I_.I'...!LCY.TI....ITHlEll'D:Tno__......Ao%rs
-.'IC.llIE_OISTIfa_M__-.....,I...
"._''''_llDI'_comIa.o llIE..-,m%........,lII:.... lIC.....,~Ol/1L'lGIlII_
CITY. m.:llU_,... 00.,,'"IC&IICNf CllIffla._,_ ~. _'I\tlIlIAaIflllE
_f1"'''MI'IlO.ttr. l'Q.l.l>1.._1'O_rr."'II'<:I:I"""lT~......--r,...
IICI'Jrl'IPill.".-.'CMU:.
"a"f1.._I_ctuIl!l:!I-..._~""P\lCTIOl_'.._,..'MI'_. ~--.ef''''
rsP\,dCl;l.....lHIOIl...1\AIL ..TtI\<VJII!U --.._,"",.
...III.L~_-...~TIIILI__"'TlC'lflDPllllllno_"_
~ICII/tIWI'...
Il.M_I'mIC_......lH,..__I....'..no..,_II'IH"'......'C
~l___'.
1'._....."_.......'" _ CITYCIIITI........._...MW1IC-.,COMT/fCIM,1
_"__M...-..ILITY__-.,,-'..."_IlIl......lacO'ICOYDI:Il_1M
COHmu:l",.... .-~. __.."'.............ac.......-........,T1DfII1>C
CII._lIQII~_tn__......
2Z._ 'S!lIIHI[" "'1.....1'.. _CITY" -.u.lIOI:lI...... IWU'"'_.:II..,~
.-sr.TlI:"'-._'tI-""OTl'OITIC_IIl<I.."tr."''''.-_
",,'[I.lCTlIIiI"1UI0J.ILITY--"fI_.I'IC~ltlilB"lHl,urllil
......"'..TIC_I.TE~"-__'a...,"'llI_II"'.'...-.;n'"'
011-""...
n.ff'A'_TlIIEDIM'''I.. ... . ''''''1'IC1l1l:._IClIJ\lI.TI'VL_0II
_....."I<lB..01>€Ill8.LCTl......_Y_...."".[."IID<<lI"OA.1UUL'"
~""'_IOCUlI[_Dl_. M-.-r_ .......,IICII..IIU 0CI\I1!l flt:CITY
1F__n<[C'TY-"'_lI.LrutOK;1IDCAY.mlMCII_O'~"'T>lI:0fTII:1'UI
~1lI ~lATIl.'_. _O'_"II.JH<,,,,'oq"-IIlI.[OI!t:1lll(TI...III,_lN: llC
_"'..._,......."lIOIC'rJl"_~._1lI1lLl1111HEC'TY1'O_T
...".. _IE... 1_. ........YOWU',mft:CI..ltflll -._IlTt.T........ TO
ftItC'TY. '''_TO __ THlII"""'CHa;f1I'THI,,,II. _~I~I"'IIIATM;OtllClMll"l'
ISIIIT~~!C#l,/Gl.1UULlDINII!I[.TI4[D,~"....-l!It""-A._I"1HE-'
OItO"'a.ooocruw'....I..._-..u..MJTlIIIElK:-..rTI..."_...-lItlUIl,~...lIIAt
TIt[ O'1OI'olIIY II... ___..JCH./tlI.-..-,IOI<UlI[. "'" o~" IVHIlIII ........MOTTn
llC"'""'UITT__TlIIM_IlIt;lY'TIGII"'~III,r""'~"""'L'"lTI''TI'''
........._Q;IllIIn'V1~IIIow:IIE!II_..1It:Olll[lll'lJl"...-,....
--(6. -- IIlDI.
tj::~I'::"~oc:'l""TlI:'C')~~~::::'I'"
KMn_-.. c.lIMI "'",<I""'''' _lft"'_"""'P
TtlJ t".,_ IM.Il'~_. ~/OCT__lF
Clllt' ,~..- :::,::nMC!I.....
-
-=-
I.. OO\IllIHOI'[mur
=-
tr.2)~,<:_\1
.........."
-=-
."""""1D'I:1IlIUt
~..
mJ~'<:-"
I.IAAL........... _....J
tWo.""""IIllY..THtCl1"OI-......e;QUllTY"'-._OI'
_"'_AS..:lUCIW!I.
~~...r"~~~~C<lIMn''"''":''~
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
PROMENADE EXPANSION
RING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
IN CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
._~-_.
I
I
!
'-
l'" .01)
,....,
'f
j ~
,
INDI!X ......
-
"'-'<.C"_200'
WIII.IIIllIl
'."IMI....."""'lIIIurr_-....IIIC(I.OJ~.
t :.;M~,.~~=::....~~O:~.....OlDPlIlClll1Ol'\JlCDlO<1'''...YI...
_TlCDu.IJ... t...tu-)-... -.1ID...u:ss__t'.)CllI'S........'..
l'\JICDDf"___' .......lHlI.IICl....... _'iII'T'~'TlI:'" 0.<11 .lI.Lac......-
."".-.TDU.lI"'-...._llI![CfI"':J7. "_""llCiIT.tttr_
~'FlCAn.....
llC..."'lWRCIIl_...... ........TO lICC'""............._ "......__....
...__nf'OllllJ._tllll'IICl""_"',.
.. _~I"'" 1_'__~ll\lD" __.........."-.IC __. _,_''''..
__.....lrn.... 'T "..:_-..-.-,...,.e lU'l...I'I..Il:IKHtOl'-.T.
__-"'IE~lILI<""_CILAflIHl"''''''__4OItl._'''''''T''''
__1If ....Pl.."" \lI'lLlflA. MCI'" -... '_" _ ""'1lIl fII_I""tIC IIf
~""'T(_)_',,
._II:f[lJlt_...IDU__.....~'" n_--'...."...l'IllClll1'0
CIU.....__,......".I'I,..IQ>I:><I""..........r....YI"'.
t. CCN'I\CTI"'~_Ul."'~CR_llIIOl_~._,....~"'1ME
_..TH_SIlIl,S___1'HI:~1~.lI.L_'~I_.,UII:I~
ccro..ucTllll.ITHCtl__"'..........I...1[Sl"'tIC.
10.TOO~......INIOtCTltNllF_'.,..-"OCI.'SI_"'1ME...l\.D'....."WUI'IIU'__
~11Ul.
".,....... P'_ITIU;I\IIAL BTI'" ...,........ I( _,TTDlTO 'PIC CllItl:Ial" -.,C _ ~
--...'MI....."ltJID4.....I..TC"'-"CU8IT"....lIImll.... _cal.......... _ '"
IlC ~:I[l'........[lt_""""_Clll._H_.cal..__""IUIl[
1lC....Y.....~.M....Y.....TlI:II'll""-A..-..:TIIIIMII<IllKIotH:l[.,TH"........-"n:rr
....20'11II,........... __.....llDIIStIIUCm.._I>aIl.___"""'lltIC"
_"""'~""'."""""TO_"'''llIE.'--''''''''''''C_.
....._.1\01"'"
'.'.-''''''''-
,...----
....--...
....---
T.C._.II'....
T'._'."_
T.'._.W."
T.~._.ltO'.._
T.'.__II'''_
L.~._..._
M.~.____
.....-.".,.
,.C. _.-",,_
1I.__.__&llt.\lII
{"._l_.__~
17t.7tJ-._u.r...la'_1
8 -.---
'_"""'11"_
'__11..-
-._uo:
-,JiO-..__
~~.""'"-
-.............
~._--
9 ---
_."""",,U.
,.O.C._,_._
,...,.-.__......
~.,.~.-._.."-"l
~
.~...... ....... ............1
..,..::~?~;=I
CONSUL.TINGt
~:
PROJECT SITE,
VICINITY MAP
_n_
....l.
-..."..
!. rHt_~II:_'L[_IH!:CU/fllfll"rHt~_
AlIEA._llD.OCATI"'O>Il'S"III.LDlnl""',L,TIU. ~1TlU:"""lon.Il
rHt CITY '" CllIIJIlU;1'IOl --.r. n lLIIST .. _ PlII00 10 1I:;1...11CI"
..........::TI.... I'OOC. e..')......"
..... _ ~""--I'''' ""'-'111I)O[7<1'I:""" c,"'.. tlII[QL\......,~
_lD'.IItT"CMI'l_",..w;;....;,....I'UJ,1<.rI_.IlA'ItII~,...
-----,.
I. II-"'II:_It:3"INSIIlL'TY"TH[~OO_"'-'''''''''
CITY".................-".....le_"""...__I._
IIJ." "DIm.. ~l" 1Il1""'1Gl _. _ "'''''ILI''' _ 'ITHIM
_" D!l)\CO,,"'_ -"C_.
1IJ._'IIC'LITlCl.tl'IHLATEllMJI........l[lOtl'\..l/;l[""I.."',...""
MSlIUlIrC1'''''IQ.lllIHl.MNlTl'.''ItIITC.TMEro.l.Qt\HI:1nOI.
..m.IUC'III'c.....CIl<Il.....
,. _ ~,_ _IlII''/I'OAT -. IIU. ,...,..IU1Jl.lPC>-.cMI
_'''llIsr_1II.lIY~'''.201''.<llD'IIEC1U>I"''''''''''''
.. .......--r !IIl:Tlac<< ran-.T,"I. lIIlIlfI-. lOll ran........ .. T.......""
__,f111'O_lII[rHtD:ACfIftll![T![CfI...~'~.\ll[
sr_fII.<<>'I.~_,w:ID'...I/III:[MCIIMUI[lI,
'._f1CDl.UI...(........)-.........IIIINIT\.at_'I>.lIIIIH(l<l
porll........I.."'-"'IIIDIT" llC -......IICI.. _........ _'lIIn.
..~"O.lIII..........,.,._."". .-.ncooou''''........'''"'''"''''
!IIl:TI_l?"'''''''..''M...,,;sr_we,nCO'I_.
:: ::~~~~~~.:;~:=a*a:i,'=-l~~:':",~
.'THIM'_""'..-.oa'OIlIl'I.....I!IO[[rS'I"""'.,......"'llfCDC.ft
I'UHI. ...._~"..-n.IMTICI[_._III.L..-.c<r,..'"
lU._~-"."llI\Ct[PWTll:~~. ......-...lfII
_-..._To~I_IOI[QOUITI'."_Im,.llfll"'THI:
_IMlmlATl...".....-...:IICllIl.Oi2ICI<IlA1'UI_,tM.
'O.l'I.IlSJI<<lTOllIEe,""IFTN:D.uallIHlK:lI:lII....!I.THl:lIMl.lftltl'\O\.L
INST...._ ~I_.-r'" .ACIllfl[li.
'1._....."nar:"--....llIE~tnco'n_ocalllTlt[Ll['t("'"
-.,CN<T _ ~IS 1IOI'!aII _lI'III_lllt.m..... TIt: """""","'..
_1lIl""lft'....Cl~'"""IIICQoJI!1.Cl'I......-"'GJ[ST.rHt
_1'11,""", IOI.ICIIII........ _fl' UllIIltll '" T>€ em 1I'lI,.n;o
TCRl'EYlP__......
...,..ft Imft
CG<ITIII.C'I1..._-"IIIElI,....., ,M_"II<-..,-..II
~u..l'IllCrt<;a...,...l'I'U;Tl..._'IU(I[_I""'.._SOU:
""~_"'.:IIIILln""..SIIl:ClJ'O)lfl<HIM.ocrHt_Of'
Ctl8T1U;TI..."M:_'.I_lfIIlIfUl'<rll.L~...,,~"'.lIIAl
..... ~11I[-1CNf"""'."""" '" -..I:O<f,.......... "".... roKL,.'mI TO
__,.._.__'...~MM:!I~T.ItI7DO.
l'G>>I[.... """ KlI.D tal" .......usl...... ~ '- ""."", .....ll.....ltI._
IIIIU.t\111).lII<llft;CTllJIO,noM:""""""""'I:""""(t<'I1<'S1IICXC',IlIt2>'TI'"
LI"IL'''' ....1"tIC '- THE IOU N11<uc[" caltJO ~I",,"-.
~M~
n<[ alSTOcl: _ LCl:AT'... "... ~ "'IcIlY "'D III mu:run
_CtlT"o[:l(......_CiT.''"'''....~![''''''.M:...ILlfl,l:IItC<R>S.
_.....1F1l41.1'l.....THlC'TYOf'lDCIU.t.onIJto _,C'...... ..TtI\
O'mtle.CO..-CllL......'A..1'lllOU"'ICfDCDNIT.....,.I""'.
It;PIt;IOIT.n...llIToTloCIC:>>UI:fOfl-''':TIICI:l '" M:O'-'__""
~'_"'__"'IL''''.I'E CR~ .,11<,. "",Ll,,,n
1F'Il4..~. M:_ 11 tt;GI(om '" T,IH[ JI.L N""""""""'"
_llI....ttCTT>lC\tI1L'"LlOO_IF~"'_O<II<.."....
-..un
~: :lI.'1::.i~
................
..... -........ ""-'
..... -"!VOl"
....._"'"
~
PROMENADE EXPANSION
lXNXf>Tl)AL CJU,OINa P'\..#N
RING ROAD 11.-
saT
I
!
I
I
j
~
,
"
1
'F<
...""..' will,
- """,>""".-.."."",,,,,,.~
I
~ '" ;;
!
, ,
, ,
, i
I ! !
U.U
i
i
~-';~,
-'\'---"
/
~ ~I
~ !1
~ i
Ii;
"!
! !I!
i ,!.
, Iii
~ i 1
Ii
11
. ~
.,
.
.,
, 0
0
r"
,"" "'.-., :J::~'
"'~
-' "~),
\
'~\
)>,
'1'
'.\
",
"'\
-~:1
L
"!. .
< "
" .
< .
C _.
3 ~ II
~ I
~ :!.'
tnl;'
LU
. ~-,
r --.-.
\~'r~~\.>
i
;
, ,.
; ~ : ~ i
m:,!: ~
~~gii ~~ ~
, d" 'R .
;"ld:, II
WI! "I. . 'e
zIlBI!!: ~!
z" ',Ii!,
~jjillfWI~
="'!!:..".
U III HUU!
~000"".;:,I
"""'<""""....""""...--.
""",..".,,111'-
~ <'l ~
'.;:":
\
. \
~ ~
\ , ,
0110 \ \\
~\\
\
i
-,<'.C' "y'
. .
;~~~
" t \ ~
:d' -
-.: ~ It ~ ~
~~~~ ~
: ';. s ~ \ ~
~S~~t'i t
,\...~% \
~..~~ ..
...ti'th
~~e.'i~~\:
. t.. I"
~\\\\\\\\
-..............- .
, ~t~/
! '
'/
's:.\
\,~:~:~
Ii
. "
\ ~'.\ ~\
'."1 ..;~.1~ ~;............~\...'..
.';. ~-
,/ - ....._,
j. .-,
. ,
, ,\,
"'t.' -' ....\.
i ..,
~
$"
...
/
1
iii i~:
,{', " \
_\\~'.~\ '\
',.' .,
;,: .~ ,'.
';"\\"~' , ,\ \
;'(;"',,~,
~'. \~,' \ \i-\
',.
\ \;
'\
,
.\
~
I
.""''''*''''4;,
.;~."
~,
s~.:<~ \
"\
\:-
~.
""" ~<"'.
/"~,~ 0,.,_.. ~ "'-::;,;,..,
--j .. i?--')~:"~<~
:'T~'~~-)
w
\.
, '\1
t \ l
, tf
\ ',\
lb
. \'
. \
,
I
.~ J
o
.,
.
'%
o
o
~ !
I
"L. I
.~ i
" ,/
',~--~"
I
j
")
\ I..
j;.....
I ,> \' /
'--:t'.. .,' ,~
\
'I
..~
\\,: 9<, _..,_..
/,,\ \, ; t\,
11\11'.. .
l~~~// ~
'~'-/~~
,iO-. . /
',~\./\
/)0\\ '
'/:.::)i\'
,," ;
\i
H
"'~)" \~,
). . ,\)\ .
\ ~ ~ \ \-\\
\\ \ \.
\; \
;. \
r . \ '-
I' \,
\ ,,\
\: I
\./
\~
'- \, ':-(,:'
'. .'. ~\""./'
.... ~~~I-Z~"/\ .,
,,'\ ....'.::, ,,/\ '. -
',.< ,
" ~\
""'(on 00111,
~ e ~
: ! ~ ~ i
~ ~ y 'i ~
'i l' ~ ~
; ~ i ~
~ ~ u ~ 6. ~
~ d ~ ,d ,,~
(I) : .~ ~ = ~ ~ 1 ;
~~~~ "~in' ~
0;',1 'II;" !
'I _,j.
~: t. 'f ,. E ~ I!:! ~!:!
~,,~ <>~i" ~~~
tHr ~~'. ~~..
~ Iii:! III III
8leee ";;1"00===
.
! I ! .
~ ~ ~
i ii, I
0110 :
,,",C'W>.!"' O,",L\"'O\~.
.
~ ... .
~a
:l1 !/~
~h
~ .~
I I~
I '!'
II'
. Ii!
i
Ii
[~
. \
"
.
.,
,
,
\,\
,
,
~
I)
.. I
, I
!
(; !
,,~
'..
':':'''''
'~.
\,
\~
"",\
'.
! i
-
, )f/
/'
/)
/:
"i t
\lit' :
::"\ .
l
i..."..\..'
: -
'I'
// Ii
... i i
- "
'\i
.\\\!
.q
..: \~\
~il)
, ,
. "
:'1
_J
--i
I!; Ii !
"I ~__
~-+- ,
1i i
""f,;,~
\::~,
',,:;
, i
(f\
....'H'OO/'/. _ :"."'''0'..'_'\''''0\-'
I ~ to ~
i ! i
a ;. ;1
i I I
'. . . '. 15
U.U I ~i
iL
~n
~:.//~~~~\\
// . '9 H\J~.. "','<.
/' . '\: J,j
.' \ ' ,
,
((~i-:'~'!l \,
"r~r' .f'.
; ,/...
o J!s'
;II.
~,'~
,
,
; ill
! If
; Ii!
i I
~!
,
.,
.
'Z
,
,
i ...
1 t- -"
~ \
, \
'y.".---- ~ .'
(
,
!!!~~
I~I'
=~~; !
lji! !
~. ~ a ~
~(iiIH 1
~!!!!! '
z..!!, I
c "- "-
" "l!!!!
~::H I:
~. ii i!! i
~ii!!1!
_,c..::.c...::.""""",,,",
\i!
\;
'. .__1\Ji .
I ~ ... )r.,~"p'
..~
J
\........-..-
~ ~
):~ !
~
"\
~
.\
"
,~
'"
"
>~
/
,1, I
d,
i.:,
//':,
" '
,. '
//',/
/,/,
''1"''"";;;>/
-y.......,..
,..<(,/
--,,---~--
o
'"".-- ~
~1l~\::.:=..="'-~
.,
-- ---~
I
QVOH H:llS3"-:>HW.
-.
" J
"
\
(. e .
,
I',
U\. "
~ "-
.....
QyaH ~d
-
./
~
:~,~,":~\,-~~
....' '7~~;,:''!
j'/, '-1'1''--'" .' ,.:.'~
r' _'
/ , -
I ,
__--..r-.-......
~. (~.
\..i', \
~r\\J~
'fcc\\~'::;,~ --
~e. '. \ \, ~_ ""'"
\- , ~-~,"'I
\" .... ."''\\
\\, > \
\~
\. -., ~,,,.',}._.
, \ \~;J~
. \\J;ti;> ..
i ., '.~.','4$Q~..
.--
..,..\
~~"----
__, ,_.., RI~ I\~_~~~__
, U
~>~,.-~..- :'.. r
'- \ \ -~
\ ,
Il,i,
;i .
II ,
\\ '\~\ \.
\y,'\;;/"
\'.i:{
\--"~,
)-' ii:;
) -~"
:>,/ '\t~\
'1t~~r/
, \~,:!~ ~
\." -yo
:.:-'
",,"M'ld-.~ oo<L\""O\ ~
""',""'''''"".....
r-
.
~ "' ~
\
.-.~~
i ~~
\~ -I
\ \\
f u'
, ill
\ \\\
: ! I
! lil
: II
I
I
,
t!
,
.,
, . i
/ /
'\ /
\
r t:...~,/
_.,._=~. - -- - ------; ---.,. aYOH 6N1H ,r_
'~_. ;;f:- i _ ___ _~~' _ ~,
I 1, r hI'
(,.'---~,,' ~. --~-I
\ii f'''' J:~:~~?irt~- >~-
\
. -f '--. I
l' . '.. _. _ ~ ' ,
- I -'. .:~?:~
, "
I ,
\~--
(
"\".
\',
"~~"
"
~J' 1
~ .-
a
.
,.
. !
l j
:~
H
~ ~
i!li~! ~
~.~! ~
% !! B .,
g:!H,
<J: ~ ~ ~ E
=.. i. ~
~llili
\
. \ i
~ ; i
i \ ,
UBU
J
ATTACHMENT NO.4
DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at PromenadelPlanninglPC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
9
11/8/07
~ ~(Cl~n\\J7fF ~
111 NUV I,! >.
Temecula Promenade Mall Ring Road EnhancemfBIJ Phm _______
The Promenade Mall Ring Road Enhancement Plan was developed to address a range of
issues currently affecting traffic operations on the Ring Road and primary access drives
serving the Mall. The principal issues pertain to safety and involve, traffic conflicts, traffic
congestion, and excessive traffic speed.
The Mall Ring Road Enhancement Plan will be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 will be
implemented immediately and contains the majority of the improvements and circulation
system modifications. Once Phase 1 of the plan has been completed, traffic operating
conditions will be monitored and evaluated. Phase 2 circulation system modifications are
optional and the need for implementation of individual Phase 2 components will be
determined by the results of the analysis of traffic conditions after Phase 1 improvements
have been implemented.
Features of the Ring Road Enhancement Plan are described below. Along with the
identification of each feature is a statement of the intended result.
Phase 1 Ring Road Intersection Modifications
1) Signalize the following key Ring Road external access intersections:
. Winchester West
. Ynez North
Function - Improve control and safety of traffic operations at the two most heavily
used external access intersections on the Ring Road.
2) Modify the following Ring Road external access intersections to include additional
signing and clear lane delineation at each approach:
. Winchester East
. Ynez South
Move the stop bars on the Ring Road approaches to create a smaller intersection at
each location. At Winchester East, add a separate right turn lane at the westbound
intersection approach.
Function - Improve driver understanding of designated right-of-way, improve safety,
and reduce traffic delay at both Ring Road approaches.
3) Convert the following Ring Road external access intersections from 2-way Stop to AII-
way Stop control:
. North General Kearny Road
Function - Improve conlrol and safety of traffic operations and reduce traffic delay at
both Ring Road approaches.
1
11/8/07
4) Add All-way Stop control on the Ring Road at the following locations:
. Proposed Mall Main Street
. Bel Villaggio Primary Access Driveway (Crosswalk on East and South Sides)
. Proposed Power Center 1 Driveway (Crosswalk on North and East Sides)
. Center Driveway serving NW Restaurant Area (Crosswalk on North and West
Sides)
Function - Improve traffic control, calm traffic and improve safety of traffic operations.
New Power Center 1 driveway improves access to the center and reduces traffic
congestion along Verdes Lane.
Phase 1 Ring Road Pavement Striping
Re-stripe all faded and worn pavement markings along the Ring Road and on external
access roadways. Pavement marking to be replaced includes lane lines, stop bars,
crosswalks, and turn lane arrows.
Phase 1 Ring Road Sight Distance Improvements
1) Correct sight distance problem at JC Penney Main Aisle intersection with Ring Road
immediately west of the Winchester West access intersection through closure of the
drive aisle.
2) Correct sight distance problem at Macy's Main Aisle intersections with Ring Road
immediately west of the Promenade Way intersection through the trimming/removal of
plant hedges adjacent to the drive aisles near the intersection.
3) Correct sight distance problem at J. C. Penny Main Aisle intersections wilh Ring Road
approximately mid-way between Winchester East and Winchester West through the
trimming/removal of plant hedges adjacent to the drive aisles near the intersection.
4) Trim trees overhanging the along the southbound Ring Road approach to Ynez North
and Ynez South access intersections and at any other locations where tree and/or
plant foliage is blocking the line of sight to traffic control devices (e.g. signs and
signals).
5) A sight distance problem at the drive/parking aisle immediately south of the Sears
Auto Center is being mitigated by the installation of a 4-Way Stop control at the new
Power Center 1 access driveway.
Phase 1 Ring Road Access Modifications
Phase 1 will include many parking/drive aisle closures along the Ring Road. In most cases
the aisle closures are located in close proximity to the principal access intersections. Others
are adjacent to new 4-Way Stop intersection locations on the Ring Road. Refer to the Ring
Road Enhancement Plan for the actual location of proposed aisle closures. There are two
parking aisles in the vicinity of Winchester West and one aisle in the vicinity of Winchester
2
11/8/07
East that will be monitored to determine whether they will need to be closed in Phase 2 of the
Ring Road Enhancement Plan.
There are two locations where raised channelizers are proposed along the centerline of the
Ring Road to prohibit left turns from and onto the Ring Road. One location extends from
Ynez North to the north along the Ring Road centerline for about 175 feet. The second
extends from Winchester West to the west along the Ring Road centerline for about 150 feet.
One access modification includes the realignment of the Bel Villaggio access driveway with
the proposed Main Street to create and aligned intersection that can be controlled by a 4-
Way Stop with pedestrian crosswalks. This intersection will be reconstructed with a speed
table to calm traffic and facilitate pedestrian movements across the intersection.
External Access Road Striping Modifications
1. Re-stripe Verdes Lane access road to include one 14-foot travel lane in each
direction and 12-foot center left turn bays at intersections.
2. Re-stripe northbound Prornenade Way approach at the Ring Road intersection to
include separate left and right turn lanes.
3
ATTACHMENT NO.5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-_
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
10
PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA07-0316, A MAJOR
MODIFICATION TO PA97-0118 (PROMENADE MALL) TO
PROVIDE FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN
ENHANCEMENTS TO THE RING ROAD. SITE
MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC
SIGNALS, ADDITIONAL ALL.WAY STOPS, ACCESS
RECONFIGURATION, MODIFIED STRIPING AND
SIGNAGE, PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS, AND AISLE
CLOSURES WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE
MODIFICATIONS.
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. 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 Environmental Impact Report No. 340.
B. The City, Forest City Development 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 Development 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 12, 2006 the City Council introduced, and on September
26, 2006 the City Council adopted 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 Riverside pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et
seq. Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership
("Developer") is the successor in interest to the Owner's rights in 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 Riverside 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:\Planning\2007\PA07-03] 6 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\PlanningVan 2008 Mall PC Reso - Ring Rd Enhancement Plan.DOC
1
F. On July 24, 2007 the City Council approved the Promenade Mall Ring
Road Enhancement Agreement. The agreement outlined that both the City and
Temecula Town Center Associates desire the Ring Road surrounding the Promenade
Mall be enhanced so as to improve access and make it easier for the public to use the
Ring Road.
G. On November 9,2007, Forest City Development filed Planning Application
No. PA07-0316, a Major Modification for the Ring Road Enhancement Plan to provide
vehicular and pedestrian enhancements in a manner in accordance with the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
H. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
I. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on January 16, 2008, 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.
J. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission recommended the City Council approve Planning
Application No. PA07-0316, subject to and based upon the findings set forth in this
Resolution.
K. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission. in recommending
approval of the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that:
Develoament Plan (Section 17.05.01 O.F of the Temecula Municiaal 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 land use and circulation goals
and policies in the City of Temecula General Plan and the Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan. The project involves the modification of the existing Ring
Road, access and parking areas. No development is proposed with this project.
The modifications will result in pedestrian and vehicular enhancements which will
improve access and make it easier for the public to use the Ring Road.
Additionally, the Major Modification is consistent with the Promenade Mall Ring
Road Enhancement Agreement executed by the City Council on July 24, 2007.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare;
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0J 16 Ring Road Plan at Promenadc\PlanningVan 2008 Mall PC Reso - Ring Rd Enhancement Plan,DOC
2
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. The site plan
modifications to access, parking/landscape layout, striping and signage will
enhance the Ring Road. Additionally, the major modification is consistent with
the Promenade Mall Ring Road Enhancement Agreement executed by the City
Council on July 24, 2007.
Section 3. Environmental 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 Major Modification. The Planning Commission has also reviewed 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 development plans for the Mall following approval
of the Development Agreement. Based on that review, the Planning Commission finds
that the proposed Major Modification for the Ring Road Enhancements 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.
B. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Major
Modification 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 Major Modification will have one or more significant
effects not previously discussed in the FEIR and Addendum. The Ring Road
Enhancement Plan does not include any expansion of existing uses or retail square
footage and therefore would not result in any additional trip generation. The Ring Road
Plan will result in modified traffic patterns within the Mall property to improve pedestrian
and vehicle circulation. A Notice of Determination pursuant to Section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is the appropriate type of CEQA
documentation for the Major Modification, and no additional environmental
documentation is required.
C. In addition, based on the findings set forth above, the actions approved by
this Resolution are exempt from the application of the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") by virtue of the categorical and statutory exemptions set forth in the
following sections of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) Section 15301, Class 1
Existing Facilities because the project consists of the minor alteration of existing streets
for the purpose of public safety. The Ring Road enhancements will not result in the
expansion of any use.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\PlanninglJan 2008 Mall PC Reso - Ring Rd Enhancement Plan.DOC
]
D. The custodian of records for the Initial Study and FEIR for the
Development Agreement and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263, the
Addendum prepared in connection with the First Amendment to the Development
Agreement extending the term of the Development 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. ADDrovals. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
hereby recommends that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA07-0316
subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\Jan 2008 Mall PC Reso - Ring Rd Enhancement Plan. DOC
4
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 16th day of January 2008.
,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. 08-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th
day of January 2008, by the following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\Jan 2008 Mall PC Reso - Ring Rd Enhancement Plan.DOC
5
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SCANNED:
G DRIVE:
PERMITS PLUS:
INITIALS:
PLANNER:
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
1
Kitzerow
Of TEAl.!'
"'~ Co:
c) '<"1
~ ~
I. fi>~
't $
~~ 1989 /
'l1tolVs . NEW OyyO~
ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I, (print name) understand that Planning Application No. PA07-0316 has been
approved with Conditions of Approval which are set forth in Exhibit A. I have read the
Conditions of Approval contained in PC Resolution No. 08- and understand them.
Through signing this ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I agree and
commit to the City of Temecula that I will implement and abide by the Conditions of
Approval, including any indemnification requirements imposed by those conditions.
SIGNA TURE
DATE
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA07-0316
Project Description:
A Major Modification for the Ring Road Enhancement
Plan to provide for vehicular and pedestrian
enhancements to the Ring Road at the Promenade Mall.
Site modifications include additional traffic signals,
additional all-way stops, access reconfiguration,
modified striping and signage, enhanced pedestrian
crossings, and aisle closures with associated landscape
modifications
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
910-420-005 thru-009
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:
January 22, 2008 (anticipated City Council hearing)
Expiration Date:
January 22, 2010
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
Planning Department
1. The applicanUdeveloper 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 administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination. If within
said 48-hour period the applicanUdeveloper 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)).
2. The applicanUdeveloper 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 administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption. If within said
48-hour period the applicanUdeveloper 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\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
3
3. The applicant shall review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document
that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an
original signature to the Planning Department.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COAdoc
4
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
5
Planning Department
4. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification except as modified herein:
a. Enhanced paving shall be provided for pedestrian crosswalks at the Ring Road
where Main Street will connect to Bel Villaggio.
b. ADA ramps shall be provided at all pedestrian crosswalks.
Public Works Department
5. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
6. The Ring Road circulation system consists of a four lane, private looped road; radial private
approach roads from public arterials; drive aisle connectors to the mall buildings; and,
access driveways to surrounding properties. Modification and enhancement improvements
to the Ring Road circulation system intend to eliminate confusion at intersections by
improving traffic control and operations; reducing delay to the Ring Road approaches;
calming traffic at key pedestrian and vehicular access locations; eliminating sight distance
constraints; and, improving signage and directional striping. Implementation of the
improvements occurs in two phases. The Phase 1 improvements represent a plan to be
considered and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council on or before
April 15, 2008. Phase 2 improvements will be based on two traffic studies and other
potential improvements as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works.
a. Phase 1 improvements (see attached exhibits)
i. Install a traffic signal at Winchester Road West and the Ring Road.
Coordinate the traffic signal operation with the existing traffic signal system
on Winchester Road. Install conduit and pre-wire for a potential traffic signal
at Winchester East.
ii. Install a traffic signal at Ynez Road North and the Ring Road. Coordinate
the traffic signal operation with the existing traffic signal system on Ynez
Road. Install conduit and pre-wire for a potential traffic signal at Ynez Road
South.
iii. Install six all-way stops at designated approach roads and access
driveways.
Iv. Install a two-way stop with enhanced signage at Ynez Road South and the
Ring Road.
v. Install a two-way stop with enhanced signage at Winchester Road East and
the Ring Road.
vi. Improve access driveways to Bel Villaggio including pedestrian crosswalks
and a speed table at the intersection with proposed Main Street.
vii. Remove and close off 16 drive aisle connectors to the mall buildings parking
access.
G:\PJanning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\Oraft PC COAs.doc
6
viii. Add new turn lanes on the Ring Road circulation system: right turn to
Winchester Road East; left turn from Winchester Road West; left turn from
Ynez Road North: and, left turn from North General Kearny.
ix. Install signing and striping improvements for the entire Ring Road circulation
system.
b. Phase 2 improvements (see attached exhibits)
At the Director of Public Works' discretion certain additional improvements to the
Ring Road circulation system may be necessary. The applicant agrees to conduct
up to two (2) traffic studies of the Ring Road circulation system. The applicant
intends to conduct the first study in calendar year 2008 after the completion of the
Phase 1 improvements. The applicant expects to conduct a second study in
calendar year 2009 after the completion of the Main Street and mall building
improvements. At any time after the completion of the Phase 1 improvements and
within the times established in the Promenade Mall Ring Road Enhancement
Agreement, the Director of Public Works may direct completion of the following
improvements:
i. Install a traffic signal at Winchester Road East and the Ring Road.
Coordinate the traffic signal operation with the existing traffic signal system
on Winchester Road.
ii. Install a traffic signal at Ynez Road South and the Ring Road. Coordinate
the traffic signal operation with the existing traffic signal system on Ynez
Road.
iii. Remove and close off up to three drive aisle connectors to the mall buildings
parking access.
iv. Additional improvements warranted by the traffic studies and identified
necessary by the Director of Public Works requires future agreement
between the City of Temecula and Temecula Towne Center Associates.
v. The project results in the loss of landscaping at drive aisles and medians,
however the Promenade Mall site remains consistent with the landscaping
requirements in the Specific Plan. The project also results in the net gain of
one parking space for the site.
Building and Safety Department
7. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification, except as modified herein.
8. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access
Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. Please note, plans submitted after
December 31, 2007 will be required to meet the provisions of the California 2007 model
codes.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
7
9. 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.
10. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
11. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
12. 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
13. Submit at time of plan review, electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule,
plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review.
14. Submit at time of plan review, precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check
accessibility for persons with disabilities as applicable to scope of work for plan review.
15. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Fire Prevention Bureau
16. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Community Services Department
17. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Police Department
18. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07~0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
8
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
9
Planning Department
19. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293. Promenade Mall Expansion Plans. PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286. Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Public Works Department
20. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Fire Prevention Bureau
21. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Community Services Department
22. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
10
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at PromenadelPlanningldraft COA.doc
11
Planning Department
23. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Public Works Department
24. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Building and Safety Department
25. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
26. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
Fire Prevention Bureau
27. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Community Services Department
28. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
G:\Planning\2007\PA07 -0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
12
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY
THIS PERMIT
G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft COA.doc
13
Planning Department
29. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293. Promenade Mall Expansion Plans. PA07-0154.
Modification Application, and PA07-0286. Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Public Works Department
30. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293. Promenade Mall Expansion Plans. PA07-0154.
Modification Application. and PA07-0286. Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Fire Prevention Bureau
31. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293. Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286, Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modification.
Community Services Department
32. All Conditions of Approval for PA06-0293, Promenade Mall Expansion Plans, PA07-0154,
Modification Application, and PA07-0286. Major Modification shall apply to this Major
Modificalion
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\draft CQA.doc
14
ATTACHMENT NO.6
INITIAL STUDY
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
11
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 DOdsQn & Associates
,
2150 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92405
August 2006
. '
City 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 I Circulation............................................................................... 23
6. W ater........................................................................... ..... ......... ................. ....... 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..........................................................................................,............... 42
16. Mandatory Finding of Significance.................................................................... 43
17. Department of Fish and Game 'De Minimis' Impact Findings .......................... 45
18. Earlier Analyses .............................................................:.................................. 45
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Specific impacts that are unavoidable are listed on page which is reproduced as
Attachment 1 to this document
Temecula Regional Center
Inltial StudylO83106
-ii-
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES
Figure 1
Regional Location
Figure 2
Site Location
Temecula Regional Cemer
Initial StudyJ063106
-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 Temecula
(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 of retail 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 T emecula Regional 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 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
TomecUa Regional ee_
Initial Study1063106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula AellionaJ Center
INmAL 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 "Temecula 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
altemative 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
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
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, T emecula 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,
Margarita Road to the east, Overland Road to the south and Ynez Road to the west.
Construction Scenario
Construction will consist of the final phase of development and parking structures that would occur
.atthe Temecula Regional Center within the core retail area, central mall. The exact schedule would
depend upon market conditions and availability of materials. "Construction is envisioned as
occurring between early 2007 and late 2009 and is estimated to encompass approximately one year
to complete during this period.
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.
. TemectAa Regional Centilr
Initial SludylOB3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula 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
Waler 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 ConselVation Plan (MSHCP) area, however, it
will not be subject to review by the Western Riverside County Regional ConselVation 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 development associated with the Specific Plan is listed in Table 2.
The first amendment to the Development Agreement and implementation of the final phase of
developmentfor the T emecula Regional Center may, therefore, be considered a second-tier project
being implemented under the existing certified EIR. The City must detennine whether the proposed
project results in new significant impacts not evaluated in the certified EIR and must decide what the
appropriate CEQA environmental deterniination is to make if it chooses to approve and implement
this second.tier project.
In this case, the T emecula Regional Center EIR describes the whole project in tenns of objectives
and facilities and evaluates the cumulative impact of implementing the total project overtime 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 the
City at this time is the extension of the approved Development Agreement for an additional three
years and 90nstructi6n of the final phase of the Temecula Mall as provided for in the Temecula
T ernecda Reglooal Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
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 CEQA review process for this facility
can be minimized through reliance on the certified EIR to detennine whether the potential impacts
from project implementation were sufficiently evaluated in the original EIR to fully address significant
impacts.
The Temecula Regional Center EIR provides a baseline and cumulative environmehtal 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 CEQA 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 EtR 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 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 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 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 altematives previously found not to be feasible 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
Temecua Regional Center
IritJalSfudylOO3106 TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES.
City of Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
(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 propohents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
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 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.
The City of T emecula was the Lead Agency for the certified EIR. Thus, in this case the City, acting
as the CEOA Lead Agency for development of Specific Plan 263 - Temecula Regional Center, can
. rely upon the EIR certified in 1993. Determining 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 'Temecula
Regional Center' as part of this Initial Study. As is permitted by Section 15150 of the State CEOA
Guidelines, the EIR is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. The required summaries of
the pertinent 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 s\,!cond test that may be used to determine whether a second-tier project falls within the scope
of an'EIR is to determine whether new circumstances or reassessment of previously identified
impacts may result in new significant impacts. As the text in Sections 15162(a) indicates "no
.subsequentElR 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 CEOA 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 CEOA procedure to implement for the proposed project. To comply with CEQA and the
CEOA Guidelines, this Initial Study is being prepared to determine if environmental impacts of the
T em&cula Regional Center
Initial SludyiM3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emacula
Temecula Regional Cenler
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 cif the following environmental determinations to comply with CEQA 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 determination is
required.
. The project and associated impacts fall within the scope of impacts identified lor the entire
Specific Plan. However, due to more detailed, project-specific information 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 CEQA detelTl1ination.
. 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 impact forecast in the EIR and
since such impact(s) cannot be mitigated below a less than significant level, a subsequent
EIR must be prepared.
The Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form follows.
TemecUa ReglonaJ Center
Initial Sludy_,06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
Temecula 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 isa 'Potentially Significant Impact' or 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated',
as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
land Use & Planning
Public Services
Water
Aesthetics
Utilities & Service Systems
Population & Housing
Transportation/Circulation
Mandatooy Findings of Significance
Biological Resources
Energy & Mineral Resources
Cultural Resources
Geophysical
Hazards
Noise
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 REPORT is 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 earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An
Addendum will be adopted by the City as the appropriate CEQA environmental
detennination for this project.
Name
~6'-n"<"- ~<>~
<rJ 1'~7
v
Date:
f~ ~-O Go.
BY:
~/fi-€ cAn
Title
TemectJIa RegIonal Cent6f
InlUaJ Study1083106
TOM DODSON & AssociATES
City of T emecula
Temecula Regional Center
INIllAL STUDY
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the infonnation sources the Cily 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).
tssues (and Supporting Information Souroes):
Potentially
"",""""""
-
PoCElntlally
51_
Unless Mitigated
Leos"''''
Significant No
""'act 101)aCt
Would the proposal:
Insufficient parking capacity? (NI 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. .
3) 'Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the
Planning Department staff lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or
more 'Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EtRis req'uired.
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 Impacf. The Planning
Department must describe the m~igation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level (m~igation 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
elfect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
Earlier analyses are diSCUssed in Section 18 at the end of the checklist.
6) A reference list of information 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 discussion. See sample question
below.
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation SoUrces):
PcCentlally
--
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
l.essthan
Slgllficant No
"""" ""act
Would the proposal result in potential
impacts involving:
landslides or mudslides? (1, 7)
Tamecula Regional Center
lr/tiaJ Study_l00
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City 01 Temecula
Temecula ReQional 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 explanaliDn.)
V. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST REFERENCES
KEY INFORMATION SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan Update:
a. Land Use Element
b. Circulation Element
c. Housing Element
d. Open Space/Conservation Element
e. Growth Managemenf/Public Facilities Element
f. Public Safety Element
g. Air Quality Element
h. Community Design Elcment
i. Economic Devclopment Element
2. T&B Planning Consultanls, Specific Plan/EIR, T emecula Regional Center (Specific Plan 263),
1993/1994.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map: Murrieta, 7.5' Quadrangle
Soil Survey - Western Riverside Area California (1971)
Congestion Management Plan (RCTC)
Growth Management Plan (WRCOG)
Other: South Coast Air Qualitv Manaaeinent District. ACEQA Air Qualitv Handbook@. 1993
Other: Southem California Association of Governments 'Regional Comprehensive Plan and
Guide', 1997
California Energy Commission, 'Fuels', July 1999
Riverside County Flood Control District 'Suoplement A to the Riverside Countv
Drainaae Area Manaaement Plans. and Attachment to Suoolement A'. 1996
11. Other: San Dieaa Reaional Water Qualitv Cantrol Board Water Qualitv Control Plan (Basin
Plan) 1997.
Other: Califomia Enerpv Commission 'ELECTRICITY Reoprt'. November 1997
Other: Development Agreement By And Between The City of Temecula, Forest City
Development California, Inc., A California Corporation, And LGA-7, Inc., An Illinois
Corporation, December 1996.
Final EIR. Temecula General Plan Update, March 2005.
First Amendment 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 Concerning Consistency With The Specific Plan EIR Traffic
Study Findings, May 1997.
Other: Wilbur Smith Associates, Costco Relocation Traffic 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 of Temecula, certifying the EIR and approval of the
mitigation monitoring plan for SP 263 by the City of T emecula, July 1993.
1.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
,
Other:
Other:
12.
13.
14.
15.
Other:
Other:
18.
19.
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study_'OG
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
IN mAL 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 cned in the parentheses following each question.
Issues land SupPOrting Intonnation SolJrces):
Potentially
Signlticant
""'oct
Pclentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
.....""'"
Significant No
"""'" ""'oct
1. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the proposal;
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
loning? (la, 2,15)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdictions
over the project? (1, 2, 5, 6, 8,10, 11)
y
y
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations?
(la,ld,2)
y
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (1, 2, 14)
y
e) Be compatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (1, 2, 14)
y
Substantiation:
The general impacts to land use and planning of the T emecula Regional Center, of which the proposed project
is a component, are forecast on pages V-l to V-ll and V-70 to V-76 and throughout the T emecula Regional
Center EIR. land use impacts, both direct and indirect, were identnied as being less than significant, wnh
one exception, from implementing the proposed regional center. The EIR concluded that the utilization of this
sne would result in the loss of approximately 201.3 acres of pasture crops and dryland grains and lands
designated as 'Local Important farmland' and Prime Farmland. 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 of the approved specific plan for the Temecula
. Regional Center would not conflict with the general plan designation or specific plan zoning. The final
phase of development of the Temecula Regionai Center is part of the implementation of the approved
specific plan for the sne and General Plan designation for commercial deveiopment. The proposed
project would develop the final phase of the specific plan in accordance wnh policies contained in the
specific plan and meet all other city requirements.
1 b. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less 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 resolJrces. These agencies include the Air Quality Management District,
Regiorial Water Quality Control Board, and the Slate Water Resources Control Board. These issues
were addressed in the appropriate subchapters of the EIR. The project must also prepare and submit a
Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board and prepare a Stann Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Temecula Regional CeRer
InltlalStudyltl83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emacula
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. ImQacts 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 farmland
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 agricullural properly
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. ImDacts Remain the Same or less Than Characterized In the TRC EIR. The proposed project is in the
west-central 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. Imoacts Remain the Same or less Than as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site is within an
area developed with a mix 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 win not be incompatible with the existing land uses.
The final phase of development of the Temecula Regional Center would bfj completed during operation
of the remaining portions of the Regional Center and some disturbance of on-site traffic would occur.
However, no long-term land 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 agreement during which the final phase of
development win be implemented. Based on the analysis presented above, land use and planning issues,
-related specifically to the proposed development agreement and buildout of the final phase of theTemecula
Regional Center, remain consistent with the approved specific plan and wiU not experience potentially
significant adverse impacts from project implementation greater than those anticipated by the TRC Final EIR.
All land use and planning issues are forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is
approved and implemented. No land use mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with
.the data contained in the TRC Final ErR.
T emecuIa Regional Center
IritiaJ Study!063l06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting Intoonallon Soo~l:
Poteotially
SigniflC8l1l
"1"''''
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
Leos""
SIgnIfICant No
ln1Jacl ~acl
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)
b) Police protection? (1.2,14,15)
y
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 governmental 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 adverse impactslo any public services. However, the cumulative
impacts would be significant.
The City of Temecula provides certain public services to the City's residents that are an essential component
of the area's transition 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: schools and
medical services. Many of these services are self-supporting, i.e., 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. Imoacts R.,:,main thA Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site is served by the
Riverside County Fire Department and California 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 site 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 site.
This project site has been generally included in the City Fire Protection Master Plan's facility
improvements and staffing increases for T emecula. It is not expected that any new physical facilities for
fire protection will be required to serve the project.
The project site is not within a Wildland Fire Protection Area, i.e., 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_ Aeglooal Center
Initial S1udy1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
Temecula 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. Imoacts 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 EtR, would also improve safety and may decrease demand for police services in
response to local traffic accidents.
The City contracts with the Riverside County Sheriffs 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
California 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. Imoacts Remain the Same or less than Characterized in the TRC EIA. The Temecula Unified School
District provides public elementary, junior high and high school education for the area surr04nding 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 be required and no
adverse impact to school facilities is forecast to result from implementing the proposed project.
2d. Imoacts Remain the Same or less than as Characterized in the TRC EIA. 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. Imqacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. The proposed project would result in the
bulldout 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 isforecasllo place a less than
significant demand on the circulation system maintenance in the City.
21. ImDacts Remain the Same or less than as Characterized in the TRC Elf!. 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 commercial
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. .
Te~a Regional Center
Initial StuclytOO3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL 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 Inlormation Sources):
Pohlntlally
SiQrlfficant
""'...
Potentially
Signlflcatll
Unless Mitigated
.....-
S1golficant No
ln1Jact IlTlIact
3. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the fOllowing uti/ities:
a) Power or natural gas? (1,2,14,15)
b) Communication systems? ((1,2,14,15)
c) Sewerorseptictanks? ((1,2,14,15)
y
y
y
d) Solid waste and disposal? ((1,2,14,15)
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 arid 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 long-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 County which
T emecula Regional Center
lnffial SIudy,Q83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
Temecula 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 direclfee 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 storm 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Southern 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 EIR. 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.
Southem California Gas is the natural gas provider to the project site. Demand for natural gas would
increase as a result 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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.
3c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. Demand for wastewater services would
result 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 Valley Wastewater 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 chanl:les 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. ImoactsRemain the Same as Characterized.in the TRG EIR. The proposed 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
T eR'leClJa Regional C&rter
1_ Sludy1OO3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL 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. ImDacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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
EIR. Mitigation measures were recommended tD 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 slle 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 slle. If available, II can be utilized within the project boundaries.
31. Imo.acts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TAC EIR. Drainage improvements connecting the
final phase of the specific plan to the master drainage plan on-slle and to the existing region-wide flood
controVstonn runoff drainage system would be constructed as part of the proposed project and as
analyzed in the EIR. 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 storm 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 specilically to
the proposed project and incorporation of mitigation in the EIR. there would be no polentially signilicant
adverse impacts trom project implementation All utility issues are forecast to experience less than signilicant
impacts if the project is approved and Implemented. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the
TRC Final EIR.
Temecula Reglonaf Center
InitIaJ Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting Inlonnatlon Sources):
PotentIally
__I
"..>act
Poteotlally
Significant
Unless Mitigated
~'>an
Significant No
Irrpact ~act
4. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the proposal;
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1,2, 14)
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
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-l54 and throughout the certified Temecula 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 not 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 within the
specific plan area closer to the tiuildout 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 site 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 the final phase of development. The needs ot
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.
40. 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
T.emecula Regional Center
Initial StudylOO31OG
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
,
City of Temecula
T emecula Re~ional 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.
IsSU8$ (and SUpporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
""'oct
Potentially
Slgnlflcant
Unlass Mitigated
....,..."
Slgnifleant No
Irrflact lfTlIacI
5. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(1,2,14)
y
b) 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?
(1,2)
y
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (2)
y
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(2)
y
e) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts,
bicycle racks)? (1,2,14)
y
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-117 of the certified TRG 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 result 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 Specific Plan, are also evaluated in the recent General Plan FEI8. Several intersections and
freeway ramps are forecast to operate at less thah acceptable Jevels 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 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 Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
5a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRG EIR. The Gity of Temecula has identified the
minimum level of service (lOS) as 'D' 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 Reglonaf Center
Initial Study.003106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City 01 T emecula
T emecula Reaional 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 EtR 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 signiticant level. The General Plan EIR also identifies cumulative impacts to circulation that
cannot be mitigated to a less than significanllevel. 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 EIR.
5b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIA. New road improvements were proposed
and iinplemented 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 EIR the
proposed project is not forecast to pose significant hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists, or motor vehicles.
5c. Imoacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TFlC EIA. During construction adequate
emergency access and control must be accomplished by implementing a traffic management plan to
ensure safe, albeit, slower traffic lIow 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
condifion 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.
Sd. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The existing specilic plan and City of
Temecula zoning ordinance include requirements for adequate parking capacity. With buildout of the
Specific Plan, parking capacity would be increased if necessary using one or more parking struclure(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 EIR. 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 alternative modes of transportation, including public transportation, as they have
the potential to ease general traffic congestion in the area.
5f. lmoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project does not affect any rail or
water circulation systems 'as none exists in the project area. The project is not located within the airport
influence area of French 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 implemented. 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.
,
.j
T emecula Regional Center
Inltiaf Stwy/0831 06
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and Supporting lofonnatiQo Sources):
Potenti~ly
Significant
-
PotentiaHy
Slgnfficanl
Unless Mitigated
......""'"
S1gnlflcant No
k\1lact lnlJact
6. WATER. Would the proposal resultin:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff? (1.2,14)
y
b) J;:xposure 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 01 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)
y
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
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-56, and V-116 to V-123 ofthe certified THe Final
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. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EtA. Implementation of the Specific Plan was
anticipated to result in changes to absorption rates and the amount of runoff from the project site. An
engineering report (Sea Volume II of the SPJEIR), and drainage study were used to analyze impacts of
. runoff from the implementation of iIle Specific Plan in the certified EIA. 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
Temecula Regional Center
Initial Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula ReQional 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 resuit 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 less than significant. Thus, the Implementation of the
final phase of the Specific Plan will not result in an exposure of new facilities to significantflood 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. Impacts 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 dil;Charge 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 Stormwater 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 (Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan, SWPPP) and over the long-t!)rm (Water Quality 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
precipita:tion and oltler 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 demand
equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required for a 500 dwelling unit project (approximately
25p acre ft. per year).
As discussed in response 6c, surface water quality impacts would be below a level of significance with
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
InltlaJ $tudyI083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
T emecula Regional Center
INmAl STUDY
water aquifer through percolation. The impacts to rate and direction of flow of ground water would also
not experience a significant 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 durfng which the final phase of
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 significant 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 if 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 neads 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.
P(qntially Potentially ........an
SI",,-_ Significant Significant No
...... (and_ ' "....' Sources): ."",'" Unless Mitigated - ."",'"
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or y
their habitats (including, but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
(1,2,14,15)
b) Locally designated species and/or natural Y
communities (e.g. heritage treas, oak forests,
etc.)? (1,2,14,15))
c) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and y
vernal pools)? (1,2.,14,15)
d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors, y
(including, but not limited to Murrieta Creak,
Warm Springs Creek and Cole Creek)?
(1,2,14,15)
Substantiation:
The general impacts related to biological resources from development of the project as part of implementation
of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-77 through V-83 of the certified TRC
Final EIR (FEIR). Several general mitigation measures were identified to address the project site biology
resource impacts. The EIR concluded that no signifICant 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~aRediOnaf Cerder
Initial Study1063106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula ReQional 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
TRG 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 TRG 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 EIR in the biological resources
section.
7a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Charflclerized in the TRG 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 TRG EIR.
7b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The EIR lound 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 site. Raptors used the site for
foraging, but the loss of foraging habitat at this partlcu1ilr site 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. Iml?acts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. No riparian habitat, vernal pools,
wetlands, or jurisdictional waters were found on site. The site was used for drytand farming and was
highly disturbed at the time of the EIR analysis. Since the site is fully developed with urban uses, no
potential exists to adversely impact any wetlands.
7d. ImQacts 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 projeci 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 ErR, 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
imp~cts from project implementation. All biology resource issues are forecast to experience less than
Teme<:Ua Regional.center
I""" StudylO831OG
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
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 TRe Final EIR.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Signfficant
""""
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigated
Lesslhan
Significant No
"""'" On,n'"
8. 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-85 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 result from the proposed project implementation. However, cumulative impacts to
energy resources from general area-wide growth were considered potentially significant.
8a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRe EIR. The project would not conflict with any
known energy or non-renewable resource conservation plans. The proposed project is part of the
implementation of an approved Specific Plan. Energy reso.urces 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. Imoacts That Were Not Characterized in the TRC EIR. The EIR 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 asphalt. 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 than
significant impacts if the final phase of Specific Plan construction is approved and implemented. No energy or
.
Temecula Regional Center
.lritial S~y'i003106
TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City ofTemecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
mineral resource mitigation is required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data contained in the
TRG Final EIR.
Issues (and SUpporting Information Souroes):
Pooentlolly
SIgnIficant
'n."..
Potentially
Slgolflcanl
Unless MitlQated
Loss""'"
Slgnlftcant No
kflJact 1r11>act
9. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? y
(1,2,14)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? y
(1,2,14)
c) Affect historical resources? (1,2,14) Y
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change y
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (1,2,14)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within y
the potential impact area? (1, 2, 14)
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 TRG Final EIR
(FEIR). The analysis of the project concluded that no significant adverse impacts to cultural resources would
result from the TRG development. Several mitigation measures were identified to address the project site
cultural resource impacts. Archaeological and Paleontological Assessments were performed 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. Imoacts 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 me;lsures
(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 paleontoiogic 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 that should in the eventthat any cultural resources are encountered during
grading or construction activities, work shall be 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 buildoul 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.
Temeoola Regional Centef'
lr;tialStudy,l)83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
9c. Imoacts 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 fanTI 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 01 the Specific Plan.
9d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRe EIR. The proposed project site is not known to
have any unique ethnic cuitural 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRe 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 cuitural
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 Final EIR.
1s$\18S (and SUpporting Information Sourt:es):
Potentially
--
-
Potentially
81...._
Unless Mitigated
.....-
81_ No
- ""''''''
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 TRe
Final EI R (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 he significant adverse Impacts to
recreational resources would result from the propoSed projectimplementation.
10a. Imoacts Remain the Same or Less Than as Characterized in the TRC EIR.. The proposed project is a
commercia' 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
TemecuIa Regional Center
InI1lal StudyM3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emacula
Temecula 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.
lOb. Imp,:u:ts Remain the Same or Less than as eharacterized in the TRC EIR. 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 EIR.
Issues (and SupportIng Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
,,,,,act
Potentially
SignifICant
Unless J.ttigated
......-
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)
c) 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 TRe
Final EIR (FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase, concluded that no significant
adverse impacts to aesthetic values would resuit from the proposed project implementation. Several
mitigation measures were identified to address the project site aesthetic impacts related to light and glare.
l1a. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC ErR. 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 determined 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 proje6i 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 thim
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 meat ~e City public works standards and any roadway improvements would be improved
to General Plan and SPecific Plan specifications.
T emeclda Regional Center
InltialStudy_'06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
11 b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The proposed project would extend the
timeline of a Development Agreament 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 Specific 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.
11 c. Iml?acts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The implementation of the final phase
of the Specific 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.
Conclusioll
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 forecast to experience significant adverse
impacts from project implementation. Based on the analY$is presented above, aesthetic issues related
specifically to the proposed Development Agreement and final phase of Specific Plan development will not
experience potentially significant adverse Impacts from project implementation. All aesthetic issues are
forecast to experience less than significant impacts if the project is approved and implemented. No new
aesthetic mitigation measures are required for this project. This finding is consistent with the data coniained in
the TRC Final EIR.
TelTI8ClJa RegiQnaJ Center
Inl1ialSlud_'06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
Temecuta Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
issues land Supporting Information Souroes):
Potentially
Significant
..".".
Potentially
Significant
Uol8S$ Mitigated
........on
S1gnfficant No
I~ lnlIact
12. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: laull 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?(1, 2,14)
y
f) Subsidence of the land? (1,2, 14)
gl 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 soli issues from development of the project as part of
implementation of the Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-12 through V-24 of the certified TRC Final EIR
(FEIR). The analysis of the Specific Plan, including the final phase of development, concluded that no
significant adverse impacts to geology or soli 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 pr~pared as part of the environmental analysis in the certified EfR 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 California. The Elsinore 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. Signllicant 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
the site since 1932.
12a. Imp-acts Remain the Same as. Characterized in the TRC EIR. The site is not located within a State of
Califomia Fault-Hazard Zone for active faulting and no active fault traces or faults have been found on
the project sile. 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 to non-existent.
T emecUa Reglonal Center
Initial StudyM83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of Temecula
T amecula 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 fauit rupture would be less than
significant. Further, mitigation measures included in the EIR ensure that the final phase of SpeCific
Plan will be constructed to meet City design standards.
12b. Imp.acts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The site is located in a seismically
active area typical of southern California and is likely to experience ground shaking due to
earthquakes on nearby faults. The maximum credible earthquake for the Elsinore-Temecula fault
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
northern part of the site as groundwater can be only 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. ImQacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRe EIR. The nearest known special sttidy lone
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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The issue of erosion and sedimentation
are discussed under issue 6c of this document. eity 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 eity 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 meating current water quality requirements, including the filing of a
Notice of Intent and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention PI;lIl (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 EIR. The soils on the site are susceptible to
settlement from intense ground shaking caused by seismic activity. However, implementation of
T emectAa Regional Center
1_ Study1083106
TOM DODSON' & ASSOCIATES
City 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. Imoacls 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 TRe Final EIR.
Issues (and Supporting *,formatlon SouIOes):
Polentlally
Significant
--
Potentially
Significant
Unless MitIgated
......"'..,
Sfgnlficant No
__ '.-"act
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, or trees? (1,2,14)
y
Substantiation:
The general irnpacts 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 thll final phase of development, implies that no significant
adverse impacts to hazard issues would result from the proposed project. Several mitigation measures were
Temecula Regional Center
lcltlal Study1083106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula ReJlional 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. Imoacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRC EtR. 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 of. hazardous materials during construction. The City also requires
all spills or leakage of petroleum and other products during construction 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 signnlcant water quality impacts.
13b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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 conforrn to all City police, fire and public works standards.
13c. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRe EIR. Building construction can be associated
with some hazardous materials that, n 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 iflilpacts of this issue to
less than significant. As a result, handling and managing hazardous substances and equipment would
result in be less than significant impacts from this issue.
13d. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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 sea Section 3 of this document.
The Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation found 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 risk of exposure of people to existing health hazards would be considered
less than significant with the mitigation in the EIR incorporated.
13e. Impacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. The project site is not located within a
Wildland Fire Protection Agreament Area, i.e., an identified special hazard area that requires additional
services be available from the California Department of 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 signnicant
TemectJla Regional Center
lnitiaf Study..oo3106
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 signnicant adverse impacts from project
implementation. All hazard issues are forecast to experfence 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.
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources);
Potentially
Significant
""'oct
Potentially
Sl_
Unless Mitigated
.....than
SlgnIflcant No
""'"" ""'""
14. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,2,14)
y
b) 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 implernentation of the
Specific Plan are forecast on pages V-31 through V- 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 resuitirig 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. Imoacts 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 permits.
Some standard policies include limiting the hours of construction activity, and requiring a construction-
related noise mitigation plan for projects adjacenUo 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 majotnorth-south transportation corridor. The Specific
Plan itself will contribute little and insignificantly to ultimate noise levels.
No changes in conditions or the results of the analysis would occur as a result of developing the final
phase of the Specific Plan analyzed in the TRC EIR.
Temecufa Regional Center
Initial StudyAJ83106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
14b. Imoacts Remain the Same as Characterized in the TRC EIR. 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 Temecula 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 TRe Final EIR.
Issues (and SUpporting lnfOlmlltion Sources):
Potentlally
Sl_
"""""
Potentially
Slgnlllcanl
Unless Mitigated
......,,'"
S1gnlflcant No
""'act _
15. AIR QUAlITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(1,2,14)
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 Plan 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 tq less than significant even with mitigation.
Mitigation measures were identifiEid to address short-term project construction air quality impacts, but impacts
were still considered significant.
T emecula Regional Center
1_ StudyMe3106
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 resuit 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
mitigation. 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, but the 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 TRe 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 mitigation was required.
15.d ImDacts Are Identified That Were Not Considered in the TRe 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 materiais. None of these odors
are permanent, nor are they normally considered so offensive as to -cause sensitive ro>wo>,.:v," to
complain. Diesel fuel odorS from construction equipment and new asphait paving fall into this category.
Both based on the short-term 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 conditions 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 experfence 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.
Temeclila Regional Center
Initial Study.<l83'06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
Issues (and SUpporting Information Sources):
Potentially
$/gnlflCaflt
....""
Potentially
Significant
Unless MItigated
Lesslhan
Significant No
Irrpact ~act
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
restrfct the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California 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.)
y
d) Does the project have environmental etlects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
y
Substantiation:
The proposed project consists of a proposed ~velopment Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the
Temecula Regional Center Development Agreement an additional threa years to provide for the future
developrrient of the remaining square footage allowed under the final phase of the approved Temecula
Regional Center Specilic Plan. The project is part of the City of Temecula Specific Plan No. 263. The
construction and operation of this proposed project has bean evaluated as having no potentially signilicant
effects that are signilicantly greater than those analyzed in the EIR and that would not be reduced to less than
significant level with mitigation incorporated from the Specific 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 result in additional significant adverse impact that requires new' mitigation
measures. The following text summarizes potential impacts and recommendations.
16a. Potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project have been identified
in the areas of biOlogical and cultural resources for the Specific Plan In the Specific Plan EIR. However,
based on technical studies for these issues, all but cumulative impacts to Wildlife and Vegetation were
reduced to a less than significant impact level by implementing the mitigation measures identified in
Sections 7 and 9 of this Initial Study. With mitigation, all biological and cultural resources impacts were
reduced to a less than significant level, except for cumulative impacts. No further analysis of these two
Teme<:Ua Rtglonal Center
lritial Shdyt003106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
{ ;
City of T emecula
Temecula ReQional 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, wildlifelvegetation, 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-term 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 EI R for these issues.
The proposed project would have impacts that remain relatively the same as those evaluated in the
Specific Plan 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, would 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 TRe
EIR for these issues. The proposed project would have impacts that remain relatively the same as
those evaluated in the 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 Temecula 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 Agreament in order to
develop the final phase of a Specific Plan, would be equivalenl to that analyzed in ,the ErR. This finding is
based on implementation of mitigation measures identified In the original EIR and City imposition of and
enforcement of mandatory or sUmdard 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 bean identified and required for the proposed project to ensure no
significant impacts will result from its implementation, the City can issue an Addendum to the certified TRC
EIR as the appropriate CEQA environmentill determination. Neither a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR nor a
Negative Declaration is required to comply with CEQA for this project. The City will adopt an Addendum to the
ErR for the proposed project. The City Council will consider adoption of an Addendum to the certified
Temecufa 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 described in this document.
~
T emecuIa Regional Center
Initial StudyAJ63106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula R611ional 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 ifs 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 TRe EIR.
T emecula RegIonal Center
.Inftial Study1083106
'TOM DODSON & AsSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
IN mAl STUDY
FIGURES
TemecuIa Regional Center
Inl1Ia/ Study"'B3106
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City of T emecula
T emecula Regional Center
INITIAL STUDY
XM~'.s
Data use suIlject to icense.
@l2004 DelDnne. ><Ma~4.5.
WNt'I.delorme .com
1
~m1
o 2 4 6 8 10
Data Zoom 9-0
""'(tV' E)
Temecula Regional Center
Initial StudyA:l831 06
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
City ofT emecula
T emecula Regional Center
--
Data lI$e subject to license.
~ _ OeLom\e, XMaptM5,
WVWt.delorme.com
l
MN (12.7" E)
T erneaAa RegIonal Canter
Initial Study,oo:ll06
INITIAl STUDY
XMapA'I-4.5
~.
o Wl urn 2400 3200 4lIIl
Data Zoom 13-0
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENT NO.7
EIR ADDENDUM
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
12
ADDENDUM TO TIm 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 CaI. Code of Regs. ~15000 et. ~.), 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
, 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 Ternecula 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.
In 1993 the City of Temecula certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
construction arid 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 Ab-'-v.;.u.ent, 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, LP., 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
I
subsequent or supplemental EIR under very narrow circumstances. Section 15162 of tile CEQA
Guidelines states:
Ha) 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: '
U(a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather
than a subsequent EIR if;
915441.1 August 30, 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 determine 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 ana 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 previonsly 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 inforrftation 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 mitigaqon 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 subsequent EIR need not be
prepared, and that the City may rely on this Addendum to approve the proposed extension to'the
Development Agreement.
91S44U August 30, 2006
3
ATTACHMENT NO.8
CONFORMED NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
13
STATE Of CAliFORNIA, THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT Of FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL RUNG FEE CASH RECEIPT
Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA
County Agency of Filing: Riverside
[,'~~-:'-o --;~, ,'c' ~ ~.:.:,::
,\ (I I \" 'c I 'j
rl')l~~; ~ :; \) LeiL!!
I : OCT 2 7 7006 .
8y (j.WLI j / / /M,~1/
"-~~~-~.~-~~
Receipt #
200601088
Date: 09/1312006
Document No:
200601088
P,oject Tide: TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM NO, 3
t~.<
P,oject.lppUcantNa=: CITY OF TEMECULA
P,oject Applicont Address: 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA CA 92590
P,oject Applicant: Local Public Agency
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
~ ErrvironmenJtJ/ Impact Report
o Negative Declaration
o Application Fee Water Diversion (State Waler Resources Control Board Only)
o Project Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs
lID Cou~ Administration Fee
o Project that Is exempt from fees (DeMinimis Exemption)
o Project that is exempt fromfees (Notice of Exemption)
Total Received
Phone Number:
$850.00
$64.00
$914.00
Signature and title of ~rson receiving payment:
~""..,4f ~~.R
Notes:
,
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Determination
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Department
County of Riverside City of Temecula
P,O, Box 751 43200 Business Park Drive
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Filing of a N0tice of Determ1nation in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the
Public Resources Code.
State Clearinghouse No.:
Project Title:
Project Location:
[PRIV~RSID'hOU! [Q)
~tP 1 3 2006
LARRYW. WAAO, CLERK
By J rYl_..-..! T. Marshall
7, Deputy
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
Temeculil 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~i>>dlho
Meridian on the USGS Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series T()j)e'graphic
Map (see Figures 1 and 2)
A proposed Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term 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 T emecula Regional Center Specific Plan
City of Temecula
Cheryl Kltzerow/Matt Peters
Telephone Number: (951) 694-6400
This is to advise you that the City Council for the City of Temecula 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 CEQA
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 ofTemecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590.
Signature: .
})~~u1?4'$Y/~
Debbie Ubnoske, Director-of Planning
Date:
%~~~~~~"1nation
POSTED
\)t:r 1 J LUUO
Removed: /0 -10 -:p-6
By: 0'1--1, ~ Dept
Countvof Riverside. State of California
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:
Q.\~nJUI"(:M"J;nb. m=u Q/1'Hn~ ldh
ATTACHMENT NO.9
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\Planning\PC staff report MEMO - Mall Ring Rd Plan.doc
14
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental:
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. PA07-0316
Forest City Development Corporation
Promenade Mall - bound by Ynez Road, Winchester Road, Margarita Road and Overland
Road
A Major Modification for the Ring Road Enhancement Plan to provide for vehicular and
pedestrian enhancements to the Ring Road at the Promenade Mall. Site modifications
include additional traffic signals, additional all-way stops, access reconfiguration, modified
striping and signage, enhanced pedestrian crossing, and aisle closures with associated
landscape modifications,
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is
consistent with the previously adopted Environmental Impact Report and Addendum and no
further environmental review is required. A Notice of Determination will be issued in
compliance with CEQA Section 15162.
Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters, Associate Planners
City of Temecula, Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
January 16, 2008
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 althe 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 8:00 a,m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the
project may be addressed to the case planner at the City ofTemecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400,
~
....: fH
\\\
i,I', \,F
_ --""~", '';:::'/ :~"e-~~>)'
I _u .~. ..)'-e I .,,' . ""'1\ y;
~..;;)I~~
"'I'~--'-':"T',
!::;i:!!iL:.
"':~~#Jj,;;~~t~,.. ,
.,,-'
, "
"
.-"
c
0'
--'.i
,-,
I,,:
.,.("~"/
/
/ ' ~ '- /(<\~.;~:-l::.:-:;:;i ':,'
-'-'-, ">-.(, , \ \.-1..-' ,,~'L ""1 ~
~~ ~,)./~::::::~'\\~i~:-,~':~_j, -~J\!:VI
1':':;::
'.;::C::
y
/"".-
G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0316 Ring Road Plan at Promenade\PlanningINOPH-PC,doc