Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030399 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilitiss Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of U. Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400. No6~catton 48 hours prior to a meeting wiX enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting ['28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA TiUe II] TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 3, 1999, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Reso Next In Order #99-006 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Guerdero Guerdero, Naggar, Soltysiak and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item no__t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of February 3, 1999 Minutes PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. Case No: Applicant: Location: Planning Application PA99-0022 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) City of Temecula Site 1: Jefferson Road south of Winchester Road (APN 910-310-007) Site 2: Kaweah Drive and Nob Court (APNs 957-291-AII and 957-292- 001 through 004) Site 3: Jefferson Road north of Winchester Road (APNs 909-120-036 and 046, and 909-281-016) Proposal: To amend the City General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps in the following manners: Site 1: Community Commercial to Highway Tourist Commercial. Site2: Very Low Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential. Site 3: Business Park to Open Space (Zoning: Open Space- Conservation), Service Commercial and Public Institutional. Environmental Action: Make a Finding that these changes are consistent with the impacts evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report for adopted General Plan Planner: David Hogan Recommendation: Recommend Approval \~TEMEC FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM\AGENDAS\3-2-99,doc PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: March 17, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\WIMBERVG\pLANCOMM\AGENDASX3-2-99.do¢ ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 3, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, February 3, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairwoman Slaven. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS NO CommeFIts. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ADDroval of Aclenda Commissioners Guerriero, Naggar, Soltysiak, Webster, and Chairwoman Slaven. None. Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Planning Manager Ubnoske, Senior Engineer Alegria, Attorney Curley, Mayor Ford, Senior Planner Fagan, Associate Planner Donahoe, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Hansen. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. ADleroval of Minutes - January 6, 1999 It was noted that page 5, paragraph 5 should reflect the addition of the word visual, in order to indicate negative visual impact. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Mayor Ford presented Chairwoman Slaven with a plaque; and expressed gratefulness (on behalf of the City) for five years of dedicated service, and sorrow to see her leave, relaying his love for her as a good friend. Chairwoman Slaven's ~ance presented her with roses. Chairwoman Slaven thanked the staff and the City; relayed her personal history, with regard to Temecula, having moved to the City in 1977; noted her enjoyment with the relaxed pace of life; relayed that her interest in planning commissions began in Huntington Beach, where she contested for maintaining the community assets she valued most, open spaces and trees. Ms. Slaven noted that Temecula has provided a good life for her family in a safe atmosphere; relayed that the City can pride itself in the quality of life that the staff has worked diligently to ensure. Ms. Slaven advised that her involvement with the Temecula Planning Commission came as a result of a desire to input her time and effort into the City she loved. In conclusion, Ms. Slaven expressed her prayer for the City as the desire for the public to participate in their City government, contributing their best, and, thereby, affecting their children's lives, and their children's children. Ms. Slaven thanked the City for the opportunity to serve them, and for the rich blessing this opportunity gave her life. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Plannine Application No. PA98-0504 {Develol3ment Plan) Request to construct and operate an 87,962 square foot, multi-screen motion picture complex RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of overheads and color renderings, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (per agenda material); reviewed the site plan, signage, landscaping, and architecture, relaying that staff considers the proposed building design to be exciting and entertaining; and noted that the proposed building will be 7,962 square feet larger than the originally approved site plan. The applicant's representative specified, for Commissioner Webster, the location of the bicycle racks, relaying that the applicant was willing to add an additional bicycle rack if the Commission desired. Chairwoman Slaven closed the public hearing at this time. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt Resolution No. 99-03 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0504 (Development Plan) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subiect to the Conditions of Approval. RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0504. DEVELOPMENT - THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN 87,962 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-SCREEN MOTION PICTURE COMPLEX LOCATED AT 40750 WINCHESTER ROAD, WITHIN THE PROMENDADE MALL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND YNEZ ROADS The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Plannin¢l ADI31ication No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract MaD 28510), Plannincl Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment to CamDos Verdes Sl~ecific Plan) and Planninq Al~plication No. PA99-0016 (General Plan Amendment) Request for a tentative Tract Map for 242 single family residential lots, a park site and one commercial lot totaling approximately 71.1 acres within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. An amendment to the existing Campos Verdes Specific Plan which primarily consists of increasing the school site from 10 acres to 20 acres, resulting in a reduction of 81 residential parcels and a reduction to the park site in Planning Area 1. Additionally, a portion of the residentially and park zoned property is being changed to a commercial zoning classification. An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map for consistency with the land use changes of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan amendment. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the staff report (of record), specifying the criteria necessitating the amended Specific Plan as the direct result of the school site doubling in size (from a 10-acre elementary school to a 20-acre middle school); clarified that the City initiated the request for the amendment; noted that an exhibit presented referenced a 19-foot retaining wall, relaying that staff does not approve of the 19-foot wall and, therefore, has added an additional Condition of Approval; advised that Condition No. 1, regarding Development Fees, is not applicable due to the Environmental Impact Repod (EIR), and, therefore, will be deleted; with regard to community concern, specified that staff has met with several members of the community, specifically, the Roripaugh Hills Homeowners' president, clarifying that the road issue (open/closure of Starling Street and Sanderling Way) was not a part of this proposed amendment to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Amendment, relaying that this issue was previously reviewed by the City Council prior to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; for Chairwoman Slaven, clarified that the school site revision was based on a request by the School District due to the needs of the community; and, for Commissioner Naggar, noted that with regard to the open space area north of Sanderling Way, that the demarcation is a proposed trail to tie into the southern trail which would be accessed from North General Kearny Road, additionally, clarifying access from the Roripaugh area. Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, relayed support of staff's recommendation and conditions; with regard to the road issue (which is not an issue for consideration for the current proposal) relayed that the applicant was willing to have the streets open or closed, abiding by the City Council's recommendation, with the condition that the applicant is not required to re- design the site plan. For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Burnell advised that the environmental issue has been mitigated, relaying that the supporting report would be provided to staff for the record. With regard to Commissioner Soltysiak's comments, Mr. Burnell relayed that filling in the retaining wall area, eliminating the alleyway between the existing ground, and the area to be developed, would be agreeable to the applicant. clarifying, however, that this proposal would be dependent upon the concurrence of the adjacent neighbors; and advised that the proposed site plan provides for the provision of adequate drainage. Attorney Curley clarified that the issue presented is a defined application, specifying, as follows: it was prepared, publicly noticed, subjected to the variety of planning reviews (of record), the environmental review, and adherence to all the City codes. Ergo, the issue has been analyzed, noticed, and subjected to the strict criteria noted. Mr. Curley specified that the proposal presented is not the street open/closure issue, and since that is not part of the analyzed proposal, it is not within the Commission's jurisdiction to take action on the road issue. In response to Chairwoman Slaven's inquiry, Mr. Cudey clarified appropriate alternate avenues for public members that could facilitate the reconsideration of the road issue (i.e., appearance at the City Council meeting, requesting the Council to direct the City staff to undertake a City- initiated evaluation of the Specific Plan), specifying the avenue that could put in motion the task of revisiting analysis of the aforementioned issue under the current standards and conditions. Planning Manager Ubnoske further clarified that the amendment before the Commission does not address the road issues. · . Chairwoman Slaven reiterated that the Commission is reviewing the proposed amendment exclusive of the road issue, relaying that it was not within the Commission's jurisdiction to make a decision based on that issue. Mr. Doug, Woeke, 27513 Jimison Circle, noted his approval of the project, relaying that that encompassed his approval of the opening of Sanderling Way for the provision of access after mall opening and the provision of effective overall circulation, with the condition of additional traffic control. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project as currently proposed: David Crook David and Laura Barron Kathryn and Michael Budd Joanne Carlson Mark Jones 40237 Mimulus Way 40223 Mimulus Way 27598 Sanderling Way 27510 Lark Court 29379 Rancho Calfornia Road Patricia Hall Oscar Murdock Ray Tuider 27483 Lark Court 27495 Lark Court 27420 Bolandra Court The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the project for the following reasons: the reduced park site the impediment upon view lots the retaining wall the drainage issue the location of the small lots Although Attorney Curley clarified that the road issue was not part of this particular project, the aforementioned individuals noted their primary concern as the open/closure issue of Sanderling Way and Starling Road, specified, as follows: challenged the General Plan amendment, citing policies referencing consideration of the surrounding community when considering traffic updates a desire for provision of data clarifying the rationale of Sanderling Way going through requested a revisiting of the current population status with regard to the General Plan requested that additional traffic studies be implemented in the area of discussion noted specific opposition to the opening of Sanderling Way or Starling Road without the additional opening of alternate streets, facilitating a condition of heavy traffic impact due to the utilizaton of one sole street in response to Ms. Hall's comments, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that the population portion of the General Plan was going to be further addressed at a future Commission meeting. Chairwoman Slaven read into the record a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Tatantino expressing opposition to the opening of Sanderling Way (per submitted material.) . . A voting roster was submitted for the record, reflecting 163 votes in opposition to the opening of the aforementioned streets, and none in favor. Mr. Burnell specified the proposed reduction of dwelling units on the current project; noted that Sanderling Way could be blockaded without design modifications; relayed that the Campos Verdes project would not affect the existing trails; clarified the lot sizes and specific locations; and specified the existing drainage condition, and the proposed drainage design. Chairwoman Slaven advised, for Commissioner Naggar, that per Attorney Curley's advisement the road issue was not a consideration for the Planning Commission regarding this particular project proposal. Chairwoman Slaven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Guerriero, echoed by Commissioner Naggar and Soltysiak, applauded the developer's proposed reduction in density; recommended that the road issue be further addressed, specifically with regard to Fire Department and Police Department access: relayed that the additional 240 cars this project would generate could be mitigated through the addition of stop signs. chokers, and the relocation of bus stops; and advised that if the City honored every request to blockade streets it would render a condition of insufficient traffic circulation. Commissioner Naggar clarified that the City has no control over State Highway 79, noting that the signaling and timing of the signals are controlled by Caltrans; noted that various large parcels in Temecula are under entitlement by development agreements made by the County, and, therefore, granting those particular parcels certain provisions prior to the incorporation of Temecuia as a City; advised that with regard to those particular parcels, the most beneficial asset to the City is the reduction in density, as this project proposed; assured the community that per phone conversations with the School District, the buses did not intend to use this area as a shortcut for bus transportation to access the school barn, relaying that the school anticipated the addition of two buses in the morning and afternoon due to the site increase; with regard to the retaining wall area, advised that the developer's proposal to backfill that area would provide the homeowners with additional space, Commissioner Soltysiak noted that the evidence was clear when the Roripaugh tract was completed that the streets of issue were proposed to continue on, advising that this information was provided for the original homeowners; relayed that since pertinent information regarding the criteria for staffs rationale for the connection on Sanderling Way wasn't provided, no advisement could be relayed; remarked with regard to the retaining wall area, concurrence with Commissioner Naggar, specifically, that the developer's proposal to fill in the area appeared to be a benefit to the landowners; and reiterated that the proposal before the Commission was due to the School District's request to increase the site of the school. With regard to the issues of concern raised by the public, noted as follows: the retaining wall, the lot size location, the easements on the Roripaugh property, Commissioner Webster relayed that the applicant has adequately addressed the aforementioned matters; with respect to the existing traffic problem, advised further addressing those concerns to the Traffic Commission; with regard to the opening of North General Kearny Road, noted that the Planning Commission will be reviewing revisions to the Circulation Update within the next month or so, recommending that the public utilize that meeting as a forum for discussion, reflective of the North General Kearny Road comments. Chairwoman Slaven balanced the concerns of the community with the developer's proposals, recommending that more effort be exerted to communicate with the community; with regard to the traffic issues, relayed that the potential for circulation revision in any community exists in order to implement overall improvement of traffic circulation; noted her disapproval of blockading any street due to the impact on the rest of the community; relayed that further investigation measures are needed with regard to the closing of North General Kearny; and advised that the developer be specific with proposals concerning the retaining wall, obtaining more input from the adjacent neighbors. Assistant Planner Anders reiterated that staff and the developer have had numerous discussions with members of the public; and noted that staff has added an additional condition to ensure the adequacy of the retaining wall provision. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to adopt the Environmental Addendure No. 4 to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) adopted for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; and adopt Resolution No 99-04 recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0016 (General Plan Amendment); Planning Application No. PA99-0015 (Amendment No. I to Campos Verdes Specific Plan including Addendum No. 4 to the previously certified EIR No. 348) and Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510) based upon the Analysis and the Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: RESOLUTION NO. PC 99-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-130-056, 910-130-059, 910-t30-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-059, 92t-090-060 AND 921-090-061 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0016)"AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN (NO. I) NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-130-056, 910-130-059, 910-130-060, 921-090-052, 921-090-058, 921-090-059, 921-090-060 AND 921-090-061) PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0015)" Add an additional Condition with language relaying that all retaining walls shall be 6' in height, unless reviewed and approved by the Planning. Manager. If a wall higher than 6' is approved, it shall be screened with landscaping in order to maintain the appearance of no greater than 8' in height, and, thereby, reduce the visual impact. Delete Condition No. 1 (regarding Development Fees) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Chairwoman Slaven who voted n__o. At 8:02 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 8:27 P.M. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commission of the Director's Review Committee (DRC) hearing held on Thursday mornings from 10:00 A.M. to noon, inviting them to attend. B. Ms. Ubnoske commented what a pleasure it had been to work with Chairwoman Slaven; and relayed best wishes for her future. C. Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted Chairwoman Slaven's role with the City; specified her great assets of style and diplomacy; and relayed how much the City would miss her. D. Commissioner Naggar expressed gratitude for Chairwoman Slaven's work on the Commission, relaying that he regarded her as a mentor. E. Ms. Slaven relayed her future plans in Iowa; noted her high regard for her fellow Commissioners and the planning staff; and thanked the devoted public members, Mr. and Mrs. EIton Ward, and Mr. Wayne Hall for their consistent attendance at the hearings. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. Commissioner Guerriero recommended that Senior Traffic Engineer Moghadam investigate the site distance problem at the intersection of Dandelion Court and Roripaugh Road, advising that the condition may warrant a three- or four-way stop. B. For Commissioner Webster, Senior Planner Fagan clarified the DRC hearing item, regarding the Van Daele Development. C. Commissioner Webster relayed his interest in attending the April 29 - May 2 conference in San Diego. D. Commissioner Naggar recommended the development of an annual report in order for the Commission to review the year's accomplishments. E. In response to Commissioner Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the City could provide the Commissioners with business cards inclusive of personal phone numbers in order to facilitate communication between the Commissioners. F. Commissioner Naggar queried the status of the crosswalk at Moraga and Margarita Roads. G. For Chairwoman Slaven, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified the specifications of the road-widening project at Ynez Road. ADJOURNMENT At 8:52 P.M. Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, February 17, '1999, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 3, 1999 Planning Application No. PA99-0022 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) Prepared By: David Hogan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: MAKE A FINDING that the impacts of these General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes constitute a reduction in overall impacts and, as a result, fall within the environmental impacts previously discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan; and ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0022 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAULOCATION: To amend the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for the City of Temecula in the following locations: 910-310-007 (former Norm Reeves site) from Community Commercial to Highway Toudst Commercial; . 957-291-001 through 030 and 957-292-001 through 004 (Nob Court and some of the areas along Kahwea Road and Avenida del Reposo) from Very Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential; 909-120-046 (a portion only) and 909-281-016 (north Jefferson Road) from Business Park to Open Space/Open Space-Conservation and Service Commercial; and, 909-120-036 (RCWD site) from Business Park to Public Institutional. PROJECT STATISTICS Parcels: 910-310-007 (2,5 acres), 957-291-001 through 030 and 957-292-001 through 004 (14.5 +/- acres), 909-120-046 (139 +/- acres), 909-281-016 (10.56 acres) and 909-120-036 (0.76 acres) Total Area: 168 +/- acres R:\STAFFRFI'X22PA99 - PC.doc 1 BACKGROUND Staff has recently identified a number of needed adjustments that should be made to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps. These City-Initiated changes have been grouped together to simplify the headng process before the Planning Commission and City Council. Though bundled together for processing, each of the three changes may be discussed and considered separately if the Commission deems it appropriate. ANALYSIS These proposals would change the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Maps in several areas of the City. A detailed discussion of each change area follows. Site 1: Former Norm Reeves location on Jefferson Road General Plan: 2.5 acres Community Commercial to Highway Toudst Commercial Zoning: 2.5 acres Community Commercial to Highway Toudst Commercial The former Norm Reeves dealership site on Jefferson Road was purchased by the Redevelopment Agency in 1996. Since then, the site has continued as an intedm automotive use. The Agency Board has approved the sale of the site to Richardson's RV Sales and there is a need to ensure that the automotive use of the site can be legally continued. As a result, staff is requesting that the General Plan and Zoning designations for the site be changed from Community Commercial to Highway Toudst Commercial. This redesignation will facilitate the continuation of the existing conditional use permit on the property as a legal conforming use on the property. This amendment will also facilitate the Redevelopment Agency's sale of the property and its ultimate return to the property tax roles. Staff believes that the change is reasonable, will not undermine the City General Plan, and that it will be compatible with the surrounding zoning. The properties to the north and west are already designated Highway Tourist Commercial. Site 2: Portions of Kahwea Road and Avenida del ReDoso and Nob Court General Plan: 14.5 +/- acres from Very Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential Zoning: 14.5 +/- acres from Very Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential The proposed amendment represents an adjustment to reflect the lot sizes and general pattern of development in this area. The majodty of the area is currently occupied by detached single family homes on lots ranging from 6,000 to 12,000 square feet. Though a couple of the cul-de-sac lots are larger than commonly found in other areas with the same zoning, the overall character of the area is consistent with the Low Medium Density Residential category. in addition, the properties in question are not part of the Meadowview area. As a result, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this change to the City Council. Site 3: Future detention basin alon~l north Jefferson Road General Plan: 129.9 +/- acres from BP to OS, 7.8 +/- acres from BP to SC, and 0.76 acres from BP to PI Zoning: 129.9 +/- acres from BP to OS-C, 7.8 +/- acres from BP to SC, and 0.76 acres from BP to PI The proposed amendment is intended to reflect the acquisition of approximately 155 acres by the Riverside County Flood Control District for a floodwater detention basin. Staff is proposing that the 129 acres currently designated as Business Park be redesignated as Open Space under the General Plan and Open Space-Conservation designation on the Zoning Map and that an additional 7.8 acres R:\STAFFRF~22PA99 - FC.doc 2 be added to the current Service Commercially zoned area along Jefferson Road. The redesignation of this area will also enable the City's traffic model to more accurately reflect future land use build out conditions. Using the traffic generation factors from the General Plan EIR, the redesignation will reduce the number of vehicle tdps to and from this area by approximately 27,000 trips per day. In addition, because the Flood Control District has not decided whether the property adjacent to Jefferson Road will be ultimately retained for flood control purposes, Staff is recommending that the Service Commercial portion of the site the slightly enlarged to facilitate its eventual economic use if the Flood Control Distdct determines that the property is not needed for floodwater detention, then the extra 200 feet of Service Commerdal zoning in this area will allow development to occur that will minimize the number of ddvoways and access points directly onto Jefferson Road. This is expected to reduce traffic conflicts and improve traffic flow. Staff is also recommending that the small site owned by Rancho California Water Distdct be changed from Business Park to Public Institutional. This designation will be compatible with proposed adjacent general plan and zoning designations. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes would not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. The exceptions are that three areas; circulation, air quality, and biologic resource impacts are expected to see small reductions in the anticipated environmental impacts. As a result, the impacts of these General Plan changes will not have an impact beyond those anticipated in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff has evaluated these proposals and has determined that these amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps are appropriate and will be compatible with the other land uses in their respective areas and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of these changes to the City Council. FINDINGS General Plan Amendment 1. The amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. The amendments are compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. Chancle of Zone 1. The changes are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. The changes are consistent with the approved revisions to the General Plan Land Use Map. The changes will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~22PA99 - PC.do~ 3 Attachments: PC Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 9 Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 99- - Blue Page 13 Initial Study - Blue Page 16 Exhibits - Blue Page 17 A. Location Map B-1 Site 1 Existing General Plan Map C-'I Site I Existing Zoning Map B-2 Site 2 Existing General Plan Map C-2 Site 2 Existing Zoning Map B-3 Site 3 Existing General Plan Map C-3 Site 3 Existing Zoning Map D-1 Site I Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map D-2 Site 2 Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map D-3 Site 3 Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map \\TE2VIEC_FS201'~DATA~DEFTS\PLANNING~TAFFRFT~22PA99 - PC.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- \\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRFf\22PA99 - PC.doe 5 ATTACHMENT NO. I PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR VARIOUS AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-120-036, 909-120-046, 909-281-016, 910-310-007, 957- 291-001 THROUGH 030, AND 957-292-001 THROUGH 004 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0022)" AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-120-036, 909-120-046, 909-281-016, 910-310- 007, 957-291-001 THROUGH 030, AND 957-292-001 THROUGH 004 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0022)" WHEREAS, The City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA99-0022, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0022 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0022 on March 3, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;, WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0022; NOW, THEEFOE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findin~s. A. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of these General Plan Amendments, make the following findings: community. The amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the 2. The amendments are compatible with existing and surrounding uses. R:\STAFFRPT\22PA99 - PC,doe 6 3. The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. B. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of these Changes of Zone, make the following findings: community. The changes are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the Land Use Map. The changes are consistent with the approved revisions to the General Plan 3. The changes will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan Section 3, Environmental Compliance. An initial Environmental Study was prepared for this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental impact Report for the City General Plan. The Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes would have not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. The exceptions are that three areas; circulation, air quality, and biologic resource impacts are expected to see small reductions in the anticipated environmental impacts. As a result, the Planning Commission determines that the potential impacts of these changes were adequately addressed by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further environmental analysis is required. Section 4. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0022 (General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone) and recommends that the City Council do the following: A. Approve a Resolution entitled "A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Temecula Amending The General Plan Land Use Map For Various Areas Throughout The City Known As Assessors Parcel Nos. 909-120-036, 909-120-046, 909-281-016, 910-310-007, 957- 291-001 through 030, and 957-292-001threugh 004 (Planning Application No. pa99-0022)" substantially in the form that is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A; and, B. Adopt an Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Temecula Amending The Zoning Map Of The City Of Temecula City Known As Assessors Parcel Nos. 909-120-036, 909-120-046, 909-281-016, 910-310-007, 957-291-001 through 030, and 957- 292-001 through 004 (Planning Application No. Pa99-0022)" substantially in the form that is attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. R:~STAFFRFT~22PA99 - PC.d~c 7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March 1999. Ron Guerdero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of March, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretan/ \\TEIVlEC_FS201XDATA~DEFrS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX22PA99 - PC.doe EXHIBIT A DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 99--- \\TE~EC_FS201 \DATA~DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRF~22PA99 - PC .do~ EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR VARIOUS AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-120-036, 909-120-046, 909-281- 016, 910-310-007, 957-291-001 THROUGH 030, AND 957-292-001 THROUGH 004 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0022) WHEREAS, The City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA99-0022, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0022 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0022 on March 3, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by law, at which time the City staff and interosted persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0022; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application No. PA99-0022 on ,1999, at which time interested persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. PA99-0022; WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding Planning Application No. PA99-0022; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0022 (General Plan Amendment) hereby makes the following findings: A. These amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. B. These amendments are compatible with existing and surrounding uses. C. These amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING~STAFFRFI~22PA99 - PC.doe 10 Section 3. Amendments To The General Plan Land Use MaD The City Council hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Map on the following parcels in the manner specified below: A. For the parcel identified as APN 909.120-036: change the Land Use Designation from Business Park (BP) to Public Institutional (PI); B. For the westedy portion of the parcel identified as APN 909-120-046: change the Land Use Designation from Business Park (BP) to Open Space (OS); C. For the easterly part of the westedy portion of the parcel identified as APN 909-120- 046: change the 200 easterly feet of this area from Business Park (BP) to Service Commemial (SC); D. For the parcel identified as APN 909-281-016: change the Land Use Designation from Business Park (BP) to Open Space (OS); E. For the parcel identified as APN 957-291-001 though 030 and 957-292-001 through 004; change the Land Use Designation from Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM); and, F. For the parcel identified as APN 910-310-007, change the Land Use Designation from Community Commercial (CC) to Highway/Toudst Commercial (HT). Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The Initial Study indicated that overall. the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes would have not result in impacts beyond those odginally anticipated for the City General Plan. The exceptions are that three areas; circulation, air quality, and biologic resource impacts are expected to see small reductions in the anticipated environmental impacts. As a result, the City Council determines that the potential impacts of these changes were adequately addressed by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further environmental analysis is required. Section 5. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence. paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. \\T.EMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEIrFS\PLANNINGXSTAFFRFI~2pA99 - PC .do~ 11 Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this __ day of ,1999. Steven J. Ford, Mayor ATI'EST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) the I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of ,1999 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: CItY COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC CityClerk \\TE/vlEC_FS201\DATA\DEFI'S\PLANNING\STAFFRFI'X22PA99 - 12 EXHIBIT B DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 99-__ \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\pLANNING\STAFFRIrI'\22pA99 - PC.doc EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE NO. 99~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NOS. 909- 120-036, 909-120-046, 909-281-016, 910-310-007, 957-291-001 THROUGH 030, AND 957-292-001 THROUGH 004 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0022) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The changes to the land use distdct as shown on the attached exhibit are hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as many be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula. The City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zones as described in Planning Application PA99-0022 and listed below: A. For the parcel identified as APN 909-120-036: change the Zoning Designation from Business Park (BP) to Public Institutional (PI); B. For the westerly portion of the parcel identified as APN 909-120-046: change the Zoning Designation from Business Park (BP) to Open Space-Conservation (OS-C); C. For the easterly part of westerly portion the parcel identified as APN 909-120-046: change the eastedy 200 feet of the area with a Zoning Designation of Business Park (BP) to Service Commercial (SC); D. For the parcel identified as APN 909-281-016: change the Zoning Designation from Business Park (BP) to Open Space Conservation (OS-C); E. For the parcel identified as APN 957-291-001 through 030, and 957-292-001 through 004: change the Zoning Designation from Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM); and, F. For the parcel identified as APN 910-310-007, change the Zoning Designation from Community Commercial (CC) to Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC). Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan, The Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes would have not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. The exceptions are that three areas; circulation, air quality, and biologic resource impacts are expected to see small reductions in the anticipated environmental impacts. As a result, the City Council determines that the potential impacts of these changes were adequately addressed by the Final \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEFTS\PLANNING~STAFFRFI~22pA99 - PC.doc 14 Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further environmental analysis is required. Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City CleW, shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City CleW, shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full texl of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City CleW, at least five days pdor to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City CleW, shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance. and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this __ day of ,1999. ATTEST: Steven J. Ford, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) l, Susan W. Jones, City CleW, of the City of Temecula. California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of ,1999, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __ day of ,1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC Ci~Clerk \\TEAIEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~22pA99 - PC.doc 15 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL STUDY ~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~22PA99 - PC.doc Project Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Project Locations Project Sponsors Name and Address General Plan Designation (Current) Zoning (Current) Description of Project (Proposed Designations) Surrounding Land Uses and Setting City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Planning Application No. PA99-0022 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 David Hogan (909) 694-6400 Site 1 - An area located on the east side of Jefferson Road south of Winchester Road (APN 910-310-007). Site 2 - An area along parts of Avenida del Reposo, Kaweah Drive, and Nob Court east of Meadowview (APNs 957-291-001 through 030 and 957-292-001 through 004). Site 3 - The area generally located west of Jefferson Road and north of the Santa Gertrudis Channel (APNs 909-120- 036, -046, and 909-281-016). City of Temecula Site 1 - Community Commercial Site 2 - Very Low Density Residential Site 3 - Business Park Site 1 - Community Commercial (CC) Site 2 - Very Low Density Residential (VL) Site 3 - Business Park (BP) A request to amend the General Plan Land Use and City Zoning Maps to the following: Site I - Highway Tourist Commercial (HT) Site 2 - Low Medium Density Residential (LM) Site 3 - Open Space with Open Space/Conservation(OSC), Service Commercial (SC) and Public InstitUtional (PI) Site 1 - The site is developed as commercial property and is located along an existing commercial corddor south. Site 2 -- The site is currently occupied and surrounded by single family residences. Site 3 - Has been acquired by the Riverside County Flood Control Distdct for use as a detention basin. The exact location and area of the detention basin is not known at this time. A small portion of this area is currently in use by Rancho California Water District. Areas to the west, north, and south are developing as industrial while the area to the east is developing as commercial property. Other public agencies whose approval None. is required This Initial Environmental Study is being completed to compare the differences between the current General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations evaluated using the Final EIR for the City General Plan with the proposed changes to the Land Use and Zoning Maps, For the purpose of this analysis, equivalent impacts and reductions in overall impacts are being treated as "No Impact" in the attached checklist, \\TEIdEC_FS201\DATA~DEIYI'S\PLANNING\CEQA\22PA99 - EIS .doc Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by fie checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eadier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature David Hogan Date: February 6, 1999 For: The City of Temecula \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\22PA99 - EIS.doc 2 issues and Supporting Information Sources Signific~lt Un~ No 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: 1.C. 1.a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? I X (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) _ ~ 1,b Conflict with applicable environmental plans or , X policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over ~ the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) 1.e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including low-income or minority community)? X X Comments 1 .a,c The project is a series of general plan amendments and required zone changes that can be characterized as (1) a shift within commercial designations, (2) a cleanup measure to reflect the current development pattern, and (3) a reduction in future urban employment uses to reflect the future use of a site for a floodwater detention basin. The environmental impacts of these proposed general plan amendments and proposed zone changes are expected to be less than significant for the following reasons: Site I is already developed for commercial use, Site 2 is already developed as single family homes, and Site 3 will be set aside primarily for a floodwater retention purposed. As a result, the environmental impacts associated w~tin this project are expected to be less than the originally anticipated in the Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. 1 .b The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The impacts from the General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1 .d Two of the three sites are already developed and these proposed changes are consistent with the current pattem of development. The third site has not been used for agricultural purposes within recent memory and is not within an area under a VVilliamson Act contract. In addition, the City General Plan anticipated that this property would ultimately be developed with uses other than agriculture and that they would not be used for agricultural production. As a consequence, any environmental impacts associated with this project are expected to be equivalent to those impacts identified in the original General Plan. 1 .e The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community. As a consequence no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\22PA99 - EIS.doc 3 Potentially Less Than Significant $1gnillcant impact Impacl Issues and Supporting Informlion Souices Incorporated 2~ POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: 2.a. 2.c. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population Projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) X X I X Comments The project will not result in development that would cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections, wilt not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly, and will not displace any type of housing. The project sites are either already developed or are proposed to remain substantially undeveloped. As a result, no significant effects are anticipated from this project. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or Expose people to potential impacts involving? 3.a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6 ) 3.b. Seismic ground shaking? 3.c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ! (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) 3.d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 3.e. Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) 3.f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? 3.g Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) 3.h. Expansive soils? 3.i. , Unique geologic or physical features? ' X X X X X X X X ) X Comments 3.all This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4.a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or I X the rate and mount of surface runoff? ~ 4,b. Exposure of people or property to water related X hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10; Figure 7-4, Page 7-) R:\CEQA\22PA99 - EIS.doc 4 4.c, 4.d 4.6 4.f. 4.g. 4.h. 4.i. Issues and SuppoRing Informlion Sources Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwateR impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater. Otherwise available for public water supplies? Signfficam Les~ Than Significant No X X X X X X X Comments This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan. However, there is the potential that the operation of the detention area will result in an incremental increase in local groundwater recharge. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 5.8. 5.b 5.c. 5.d. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 1, Page 2-29) Expose sensitive receptors to poliutants? Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? Create objectionable odors? X X X X Comments The proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments will result in fewer vehicle trips than originally envisioned in the EIR for the General Plan. This is because motor automobiles are a major source of air quality impacts in Southern California, the small reduction in vehicle trips that will result from this project will cause an incremental decrease of projected air pollutant emissions. As a result, this project represents a decrease in the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: 6.a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 6.b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible USES)? R:\CEQA\22PA99 - EIS.doc 5 X X 6.c. ' Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby USES? 6.d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 6.e. Hazards or barders for pedestrians or bicyclists? 6.f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 6.g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ILeES Than X X X X X Comments: The proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments will result in fewer vehicle tdps from these areas than was originally anticipated in the Final EIR forthe General Plan. Using the traffic generation factors from the General Plan EIR, the cdticel traffic areas west of interstate 15 will see a radudion of 27,280 modeled daily vehicle tdps at Build Out. (32,375 daily trips before the change and 5,095 daily tdps after the proposed amendment.) This change is pdmadly due to the change of over 120 acres from Business Park to detention basin/open space area. In addition, this change is also expected to result in a small reduction in the total number of peak hour trips from the future industhal areas west of Jefferson Road. This will also result in a reduction in the amount congestion at the freeway interchanges and overcrossings. As a result, because the General Plan and Zoning amendments rapresent a reduction in total daily and peak hour vehicle tdps, it will also result in an incremental decrease to circulation system impacts within the City. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal result in impacts to: 7.a. 7.b. 7.c. 7.d. 7.e. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? Locally designated species (e.g.hedtage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, dpadan and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X X X X X Comments: This project does not rapresent a change from the impacts addressed in the odginal EIR for the City General Plan. The pdmary change, of over 100 acres from an urban to pradominately open space use is expected to have, on the long run, a positive impact by providing some additional habitat areas along Muftieta Creek. As a result, the project is expected to result in an incremental decrease in the impacts to biologic impacts. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 8.a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 8.b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?. %\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA%DEtrrS\PLANNING%CEQA~2PA99 - EIS ,doc 6 X X 8.c. issues and Suppoffing Information Sources Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Signific~nl Unless Significant No Imp~cl Mitigation Impacl In~pact X Comments: 8.all. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 9.a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of X hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? 9.b. Possible interference with an emergency response × plan or emergency evacuation plan? 9.c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? 9.d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? 9.e. Increase fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, X grass, or trees? Comments: 9.all. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan As a result, no addition_a!_impacts have been identified 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 10.a. 10.b. Increase in existing noise levels? (Source 1, page 8-9) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Comments: 10.all. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified. ~ 11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: 11 .a. Fire protection? I X 11 .b. Police protection? X 11 .c. Schools? X 11 .d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X 11 .e. Other governmental services? X R:~CEQA\22PA99 EIS.dc~ 7 Comments: 11 .all. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 12.a. Power or natural gas? 12.b. Communications systems? 12.c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 12.d. Sewer or septic tanks? 12.e. Storm water drainage? 12.f. Solid waste disposal? 12.g. Local or regional water supplies? X X X X X X X Comments: 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new utility systems or substantial alterations to existing facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 13.a, 13.b. 13.c. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic affect? Create light or glare? X X X Comments: 13.all. This project does not rapresent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 14.a. Disturb paleontological resoumes? (Source 2, Figure 55 ) 14.b Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1. Page 281) 14.c. Affect historical resources? 14.d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 14.e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X Comments: R:\CEQA\22PA99 - EIS.doc 8 14.a11. : :P~antially ~ $tgnifmmtt Less Than This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 15.a. 15.b. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Affect existing recreational opportunities? X X Comments: 15.all. The project will not impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 16.a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop 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? 16.b. Does the project have the potential to achieve shod- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 16.c. Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulativety considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). 16.d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X Comments: EARLIER ANALYSES. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, Certified in 1993. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. R:\CEQA\22PA99 EIS.d~. 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRFT\22PA99 PC doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NUMBER: PA99-0022 EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999 LOCATION MAP CITY OF TEMECULA SC "~' SC p'~ CC CC Z,,,,P E SC EXHIBIT B-1 - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) CASE NUMBER: PA99-0022 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999 BP SITE I CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ParceLshp Ternzone ~ ] CC ~H I SP-3 I SP-4 ~ SP-6 I se-7 ~[ sv-s ! ~sr Cline, shp EXHIBIT C-1 - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) CASE NUMBER: PA99o0022 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999 SITE I VL. CITY OF TEMECULA Z VL O VL EXHIBIT B-2 - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VL) CASE NUMBER: PA99-0022 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999 L SITE 2 CITY OF TEMECULA /Z ~ OS ~ SP -~ SP-3 ~SP-4 ~ SP-6 P7 ~ SP-8 , ST ~ VL "Cline.shp EX~IIBIT C-2 - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VL) CASE NUMBER: PA99-0022 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999 SITE 2 CITY OF TEMECULA / SC SC P BP .C CC BP EXHIBIT B-3 - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BUSINESS PARK (BP)) CASE NUMBER: PA99-0022 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999 SITE 3 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ParceLshp Ternzone ~ Be ~ CC --NC OS ~ os-c E%~ Po ~ SC I SP g s~,- ~ ~ sP-; ! sP-3 ~ s~,-4 ~ SP-5 ~ se-6 u~ sP-~ ~ sP-s ST Cline. shp EXR1BIT C-3 - ZO'ItING-MAP DESIGNATION - BUSINESS PARK (BP) CASE NUMBER: PA99-0022 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999 SITE 3 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ercial ist Commercial CASE NUMBER: PA99-0022 EXHIBIT D-1 SITE I - PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999 CITY OF TEMECULA lential Residential ~ parceLshp Cline.shp CASE NUMBER: PA99-0022 EXHIBIT D-2 SITE 2 - PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999 CITY OF TEMECULA mmercial 'al Space Space - Conservatior CASE NUMBER: PA99-0022 EXHIBIT D-3 SITE 3 - PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 3, 1999