HomeMy WebLinkAbout120899 PC Agendareasonabk arrangemefds b ensure ~,.---!l~il~y to that mee~ng L28 CRt 3S.t0~.'K.tO4 ADA 'ntk IQ
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 1999 ~ 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92590
Resolution Next In Order #99-049
Chairperson Guerdem
Fahey, Guerdero, Mathewson, and Webster
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 not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak"
form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary
before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2.
3.
4.
Approval of Agenda
Minutes from November 3, 1999
Elect a New Co-Chair person
Public Convenience or Necessity for Proposed Ultramar Gas Station Matthew Fagan
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.: Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
Applicant: Margadta Canyon, LLC
27740 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590
Location: Located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old
Town Front Street and Highway 79 south (The future Western Bypass
Corridor). Assessor's Parcel Number922-210-047).
Proposal: Planning Application No. PA97-0307 is a proposal to subdivide an
approximately 37-acre parcel in 10 commercial lots and one open
space lot.
Environmental Action: City Staff is recommending that an Environmental impact Repod (EIR)
be prepared for this project.
Case Planner: John DeGange
Recommendation: Approve
6. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:.
Recommendation:
Pinning ApplicaUon Not PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map 29286);
PA 994)244 (General Plan Amendment), and PA 994)245 (Zoning
Amendment)
Lennar Homes
East of Margadta Road at the nodhem City limit.
1) PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map 29286) is a request to subdivide
9.75 acres into 38 single family residential lots and two open space
lots that comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning
classification (3-6 dwelling units per acre);
2) PA 99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) to remove the subject site
from the Specific Plan oreday designation on Figure 2-5 of the
General Plan and revert back to the underlying Land Use Designation
of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential of the General Plan Land
Use map;
3} PA 99-0245 (Zoning Amendment) to change the existing zoning
map from Spedtic Plan Oreday (SP} to Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential which is consistent with the underlying General Plan Land
Use designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential.
Mitigated Negative Declaration !~ :'~ -' '
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Approval
7. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Rancho Highlands Drive General Plan Amendment (Planning
Application PA99-0451)
City of Temecula
South of Rancho California Road between Rancho Highlands Ddve
and Interstate 15
To approve a General Ran Amendment to change the Land Use
Designation within a small portion of the Rancho Highlands Specific
Plan from Open Space to Highway Tourist Commercial.
Environmental Action: Adopt a Negative Declaration
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
December 15, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590
F:~,DEPTS~PLANNING\wimbet'vg~plan~omm~agenaas\1999\12-8-99.do~
2
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 3, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M.,
on Wednesday November 3, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Califomia.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Webster.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissioners *Fahey, Mathewson, Naggar, and
Webster.
Chairman Guerfiero.
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attomey Curley,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Project Planner DeGange, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:03 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. AOl3roval of AGenda
It was noted that Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:03 P.M.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the agenda. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Chairman Guen-iero who was absent.
2. APproval of Minutes-October 6. 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the minutes, as written, The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Chairman Guerdero who was absent,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. PlanninQ Application No. PA97-O307 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28627)
Request to subdivide an approximately 37-acre parcel in 10 commercial
lots and one open space lot.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission continue the request.
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed staffs recommendation to continue this Agenda
item to the December 1, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue Agenda Item No, 3 to the December
1. 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Webster.(This motion was ultimately amended. See page 9.)
For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that staff would
be working with the applicant in the interim pedod in order to address traffic issues and
the environmental assessment.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Chairman
Guerriero who was absent.
Development AQreement between Pala Rainbow LLC and the City of
Temecula (Plannincl Application No. PA99-0273)
Request to approve a Development Agreement with Pala Rainbow LLC.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
Apprising the Commission of the recent revisions to the proposed Agreement, Senior
Planner Hogan presented the staff report (of record); relayed the proposed modification
with respect to Section 1.15, entitled Project (per agenda material), specifying that the
following additional uses would be permitted as general merchandise/retail store uses:
camera shops, clothing sates, computer sales and service, furniture sales, and hardware
stores, additionally, specifying that one of these general merchandise/retail uses would
be permitted to be as large as 20,000 square feet; noted that the Agreement would
prohibit restaurant uses (referencing Exhibit G of the staff report) in the Professional
Office (PO) zoned parcal, west of Pala Road; for Commissioner Webster, advised that
the area at the southwest comer of Pala Road and Cupeno Lane would not be included
in the Development Agreement, noting that this particular parcel was owned by the City;
and confirmed that the parcel line would end on the east side at the extension of
Jedediah Smith Road.
At this time Vice Chairman Naggar opened the public hearing.
Mr. Phil Oberhansley, representing the applicant, provided the rationale for the proposed
revisions associated with the previously restricted uses; and clarified that solely drive-
through restaurant uses would be restricted, and not restaurants in general, in the
above-mentioned PO Zone (Via Exhibit G of the agenda material.)
At this time Vice Chairman Naggar closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that due to the additional uses added to the general
merchandise/retail as permitted uses via this particular Agreement, that at a future point
in time the City may be restricted from prohibiting these particular uses; and
recommended that staff investigate the issue of including a general merchandise/retail
store included in the Development Code.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to adopt Resolution No. 99-045 recommending
approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0273 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and to
adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0273.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AND PALA RAINBOW, LLC FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND PALA ROAD (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0273)
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who was absent.
5. Planning Al~l~lication No. PA99-0266 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Request to operate an indoor skateboard park within a 21,346 square foot
portion of a building within an existing business park.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission consider the applicant's request (Pursuant to Section 17. 03 of
the Development Code. The Director of Planning has referred this item to
the Planning Commission).
Clarifying the rationale for this particular proposal being brought forward to the Planning
Commission, Project Planner DeGange provided an overview of the staff report (per
agenda material); relayed that significant issues had been raised with respect to the
compatibility of this use with the existing adjacent uses; specified the expressed
concerns of International Recti~er (a use in the vicinity of the proposed use which
transports, stores and utilizes hazardous chemicals) as follows: 1) safety concerns with
respect to the impact of a natural disaster, or an accident involving trucks, transporting
hazardous materials, 2) the proposed use would restrict their ability to expand, and 3)
traffic hazards due to the variant traffic patterns associated with the two alternate uses;
relayed the Business Park Association's concerns with respect to the following:
1) incompatibility issues and 2) liability dsks; noted the applicant's response that there
have been, and currently are similar uses located in this particular business complex
(i.e., church, daycare.)
Project Planner DeGange addressed the concerns of the Commission, as follows:
For Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the existing skate park use in
Temecula had not had significant issues raised with respect to noise impacts, or
Police incidents; and advised that the Police Department was contacted relative
to this particular application, noting that no issues of concern had been raised.
For Vice Chairman Naggar, noted that the previously cited daycare use no
longer existed at this particular Business Park, noting that the use would no
longer be permitted per Development Code standards; and with respect to the
type of disaster event raised as a concern by International Rectifier, specified the
issues expressed were an 8.0 earthquake, or an explosive fire.
Mr. Steven Graft, attorney for the applicant, submitted for the Commission's information
that this proposed project would not have an adverse impact on the community;
addressed the issues of concern, as follows: with respect to the issue raised regarding a
liability dsk, advised that the proposed use would maintain secudty personnel inside and
outside of the skateboard park. restricting children from skateboarding outside of the
use, noting that the patrons would be paying for their use of the skateboard park, and
would be unlikely to utilize the exterior area; with respect to the issue of safety, relayed
the recent approval of a skateboard park on Rio Nedo which generated a higher
generation of traffic; with respect to the issue of incompatibility, noted the existence of an
adjacent church use; advised that the altemate previously approved skateboard park (on
Rio Nedo) was located in a higher concentration of industrial uses; with respect to the
issue of the impact of a natural disaster, (i.e., an 8.0 earthquake) advised that an
earthquake of that magnitude would adversely affect the residents of Temecula,
regardless of the location of a skateboard park; with respect to the potential of a
hazardous disaster, noted the location of a 30,000-gallon propane tank in close proximity
to the location of the Rio Nedo skateboard park (recently approved by the City); relayed
that due to the existing type of uses in the vicinity of this particular business park location
(i.e., church, City Hall), the risk factors have been proven to be at acceptable limits.
For clarification purposes. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the previously
approved skateboard park on Rio Nedo was approved via a Director's Hearing, and not
by the Planning Commission.
Via overhead photographs, Mr. Rohn Korman, the applicant, provided an overview of the
project, highlighting site location, and the parking facility of this particular proposal; via
photographs at vadous times of day, relayed that there was no utilization of on-street
parking at this particular location; relayed the comparison of the numerous vehicles
utilizing on-street parking at the Rio Nedo Business Park (the location of a previously
approved skateboard park); highlighted the amenities proposed for this particular project;
noted the alternate existing uses, inclusive of the associated activities for women and
children; advised that he had provision of a five-hour videotape which had been directed
towards International Rectifier's receiving and shipping entrance, demonstrating five
truck deliveries during a five-hour period; relayed that in his opinion, the skateboard park
would be an asset to the City of Temecula, noting that the applicant would cooperate
fully to ensure compatibility; for Vice Chairman Naggar, provided the hours of operation
(of record); confirmed that there would be security personnel on duty Fridays,
Saturdays, and Sundays; specified the distance between the area of storage of
hazardous materials at the International Rectifier use and this particular use as
approximately 1100 feet, noting the similar proximate location of the Boys and Gids
Club, the Captain's Cabin Restaurant, and two church uses.
For informational purposes, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that there was a
Condition of Approval that required the applicant to prepare a security plan which would
be reviewed by the Police Department.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project, as proposed:
n Mr. Dan Dierken
n Mr. Jeff Leque
n MS. Kelley Dresler
[] Mr. Dennis Burke
[] Mr. Roy Millendaer
representing International Rectier
representing International Ractl~er
representing Endar Corporation
representing Ftancho California Business Park Association
representing Chemicon International
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the project for the following
reasons:
Incompatible with adjacent uses
v Lack of sidewalks for children's utilization
Potential for truck accidents due to the presence of children
This particular use would restrict the permitting process for International
Recti~er
v Safety hazard for children due to the proximate location of chemical storage
v Hazard with respect to numerous truck deliveries
Referenced a similar use in the City of Vista, recently closed due to the
skateboard park not adhering to the stipulated regulations
v Additional generation of traffic
,, Unsupervised youth
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Dierken clarified the issue regarding this proposed
use jeopardizing International Recti~er's ability to expand, and to process permits due to
the regulating agencies' determination that children are sensitive receptors; and
provided additional information regarding the company's Risk Management Plan.
5
In response to Commissioner Webster's querying with respect to the Risk Management
Plan, specifically, the Offsite Consequences Analysis, Mr. Leque provided additional
information; noted the concern with respect to the storage of hazardous chemicals, in
light of the wind conditions at the site, and the presence of numerous children, if this
project was appreved; and for Commissioner Fahey, advised that a quick evacuation in
the event of an emergency would be restricted due to the children being dropped off at
the skateboard park with no means of immediate transport.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Burke advised that the Board of Directors for the
Rancho California Business Park would maintain their determination that this project was
incompatible with the existing uses, and would not allow this type of use in the business
park; and relayed that permitting the church use was a mistake, noting that similar uses
are no longer allowed.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the project, as proposed:
[] Pastor Buttrey
Mr. Paul Akian
a Ms. Suzanne Green
a Mr. Edc Green
representing Valley Christian Center
owner of the property
40142 Patchwork Lane
37241 Floral Creek
The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following
reasons:
,/ Recommended relocating any facility that poses a great safety hazard to a
more remote area due to this particular area being heavily populated
Opposed restricting the property owner of this business from allowing a use
that meets the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit
The use was consistent with the General Plan
Relayed the historical behavior of Mr. Korman's activities with children, noting
that the patrons of the skateboard park would be well-supervised
Compatible with the existing uses (i.e., church)
The need for this type of facility in the City of Temecula
Patrons would remain in the skateboard park due to the fee paid for the use
Noted the pdde of ownership Mr. Korman had displayed with respect to his
home and business, relaying that the facility would be well-maintained
In response to the expressed concerns, Mr. Korman relayed the data of the truck
delivery surveillance he had conducted which resulted in the viewed generation of a total
of 32 trucks within a six-hour pedod (between the hours of 2:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.);
provided additional information received via centact of the California Highway Patrol
regarding the safety of these particular type of trucks in the event of an accident; and
relayed the favorable aspects of locating the skateboard park at this site with regard to
safety and compatibility. in compadson to the previously approved skateboard park on
Rio Nedo.
The Commission relayed their concluding remarks, as follows:
· While acknowledging the need for a skateboarding facility in the City of Temecula,
and while noting her own son's enjoyment of the activity, Commissioner Fahey relayed
her concern with respect to the location of this particular project; reconnoitered the past
event at which time the City flooded, and children had to be evacuated via helicopter
transport at the roller-skating facility; and noted that due to this project being proposed in
a Light Industrial area, she could not support the project.
· Commissioner Mathewson relayed his comments, as follows: with respect to
children accessing the site via pedestrian use, advised that due to the remote location of
the site, children would most likely be accessing the site via vehicle transport; regarding
the safety issues associated with the proximate storage of hazardous chemicals. noted
that the area was currently heavily populated with community members due to that vast
number of employees frequenting the area; with respect to Intemational Rectifier's ability
to expand, advised that this particular facility would not preclude the business from
expansion; with respect to vandalism issues, noted that in light of the COA requiring that
the applicant submit a security plan, this issue would be adequately addressed; with
respect to the noise impact, compared the noise impact of operating heavy
manufacturing equipment and truck transport, with the noise of children, advising that
the impact of children' noise would not adversely affect the businesses in the area; and
relayed his support of the project.
· With respect to conformance with the General Plan in the Development Code,
Commissioner Webster relayed that this activity was allowable within this zoning
district as a Conditional Use Permit. as long as the Commission could make the findings;
advised that the issue of truck traffic would not substantiate a denial of this project; with
respect to children skateboarding outside of the facility. relayed that this was a Police
enforcement matter, noting that the COAs within this Planning Application adequately
addressed this issue; regarding safety issues, advised that there were no State or
Federal regulations which would restrict uses adjacent to facilities with a Risk
Management Plan; with respect to the adjacent companies' desire for the facility to be
prohibited due to the existing uses safety concerns, noted that this rationale would be
denote adverse condemnation; while acknowledging that the matter of children being
sensitive receptors could be a substantial issue, noted the lack of evidence presented as
to whether this particular use would qualify as a sensitive receptor. and what the
potential affect would be on the existing and future businesses; with respect to traffic
issues, relayed the this particular facility would be a point of destination use; with respect
to CEQA issues. relayed that the negative environmental impact associated with this use
was not substantiated; with respect to the Business Park Association's determination to
prohibit this particular use, noted that this was a separate issue; and in concurrence with
Commissioner Mathewson, relayed his support of this Planning Application.
· Vice Chairman Naggar relayed his comments, as follows: with respect to the fear of
children darting in and out of traffic, advised that the security plan (required per the
Conditions of Approval), and the hiring of official security personnel would adequately
mitigate this concern; concurring with the previous Commission comments, relayed that
in his opinion, this particular project would not inhibit International Rectifier's ability to
WmaCmrmVedautle/110,111
expand; advised that the project conforms to the General Plan under the Development
Code; noted that the traffic associated with this proposed project would not adversely
affect the existing uses; and relayed his support of the project.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Planning Application No. PA99-
0266. (This motion was amended.)
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Planning Application No. PA99*
0266. and to adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0266.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-046
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0266, (MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT) A REQUEST TO OPERATE AN INDOOR
SKATEBOARD PARK WITHIN A 21,346 SQUARE FOOT
PORTION OF A BUILDING WITHIN AN EXISTING
BUSINESS PARK, LOCATED AT 43300 BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 92t4)20-055
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval
with the excel~tion of Chairman Guerriero who was absent and Commissioner Fahey
who voted n_.9.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
With respect to the cdteria for Findings for Convenience or Necessity for
alcoholic establishments, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the issue
would be brought forward to the Planning Commission in December 1999.
Noting the cancellation of the November 13, 1999 Design Review Workshop
which had been scheduled to be held from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Planning
Manager Ubnoske advised that the workshop would be rescheduled for the
beginning of 2000.
Per Commission request, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the issues
related to the Traditional Neighborhood Design would be brought forward to the
Commission, advising that a workshop schedule would be presented at an
upcoming Commission meeting.
For informational purposes, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the Cosco
project would be presented to the Commission at the first December Planning
Commission meeting.
Attorney Cudey advised that staff was requesting that the Commission make motion for
reconsideration of the action with respect to Agenda Item No. 3, due to the December 1
Planning Commission meeting potentially being rescheduled due to the City's ten-year
Anniversary Celebration being held on December 1, 1999.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to reopen the Public Hearing with respect to
Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who was
absent.
At this time the Commission continued back to Agenda Item No. 3.
3. Planning Apl~lication No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Tract MaD No. 28627~
Request to subdivide an approximately 37-acre parcel in 10 commercial
lots and one open space lot.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission continue the request.
Planning Manager Ubnoske recommended that the Commission reschedule the
December Planning Commission meetings for December 8. 1999, and December 15,
1999 due to the City's ten-year Anniversary Event being held on December 1, 1999; and
recommended that Agenda Item No. 3 be continued to the December 8, 1999 Planning
Commission meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue Agenda Item No. 3 to the December
8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion
and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who was
absent.
At this time the meeting continue back to the regular order of the Agenda, and the
Planning Manger's report continued.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
(Continued from page 8.)
Planning Manager Ubnoske congratulated Vice Chairman Naggar for his recent
election as a City Councilman.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Mathewson applauded Vice Chairman Naggar for his recent
election to the City Council.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's querying, Senior Planner Hogan
relayed that the Large Family Daycare issue would be presented to the Planning
Commission in January; and noted that there were no pending applications.
C+
With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's querying regarding businesses that
store hazardous materials, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed the review
process by the Fire Department associated with these types of uses.
9
Commissioner Webster provided additional information regarding the State and
Federal regulations associated with uses that maintain a certain measure of
hazardous chemical storage; noted the requirement to develop a Risk
Management Plan, inclusive of an Offsite Consequence Analysis; and
recommended that in the future. the City obtain a copy of the Risk Management
Plan for these particular uses.
Commissioner Mathewson requested that data be provided the Commission,
regarding the dsks associated with these particular type of uses, at the time the
project was presented to the Commission.
Querying the prior approval of the Skateboard Park, Commissioner Fahey
advised that the hazards associated with chemical storage should be seriously
considered pdor to the approval of projects,
Vice Chairman Naggar relayed the honor it had been to serve on the Planning
Commission, commending the Commission for their diligent efforts associated
with the projects that are presented; and applauded Chairman Guerriero for his
excellent job chaidng the Commission.
Vice Chairman Naggar relayed that he respected the actions of the Planning
Commission, advising that the Commission pay particular attention to densities
with respect to subdivision projects,
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:47 P.M. Vice Chairman Naggar formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday.
November 17, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. 43200 Business Park
Drive. Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
10
ITEM #3
ELECT A NEW CO-CHAIR PERSON
ITEM #4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
P anningOommiss' , ,
~mber 8, 1998 f ~ r~
Finding of Public Convenien~ or Ne~ssiW or p sed Ultramar Gas Station,
Io~ted at 40720 Winchester Road (Outlot at the Promenade Mall)
Prepared by:
EXISTING ZONING:
Matthew Fagan, Senior PlanneFf~
Specific Plan (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Community Commercial (CC)
South: Specific Plan (SP)
East: Specific Plan (SP)
West: Community Commercial (CC)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Commercial (CC)
SURROUNDING GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
North: Community Commercial (CC)
South: Community Commercial (CC)
East: Community Commercial (CC)
West: Community Commercial (CC)
BACKGROUND
Ultramar Gas Station/convenience store/fast food facility, located on Winchester Road at the
Promenade Mall is requesting the Planning Commission make a public convenience or necessity
(PCN) finding in order to sell beer and wine from their convenience store. This finding is required
because the applicant is requesting a license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC). A Conditional Use Permit application (Planning Application No. PA99-0379) is
currently being processed by the Planning Department and is anticipated to be before the Planning
Commission in January, 2000. The applicant has requested that staff take the PCN finding to the
Commission prior to the Conditional Use Permit, as the outcome of the finding will have a beadng
on the overall feasibility of the project.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission has developed cdteda to either justify or not justify making a finding of
Public Convenience or Necessity pursuant to State Law. These criteda and the staff's responses
are as follows:
F:XDEPTS\PLANNING~staffrpt\ultramar pcn.doc
l
Cdteria to JustiN Making a Findin~ of Public Convenience or Necessity
Does the preposed establishment have any unique features which are not found in other
similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other spedat services)?
A: No.
Q:
Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. pattens of a
different socio-economic class)?
A:
Yes. The proposed facility is proposed to be located on the south side of Winchester Road.
This is on the "going home' side of Winchester Road and will offer commutere, mall
shoppers the ability to buy food, convenience items (including beer and wine) as they head
home. There currently are no convenience stores that sell beer and wine on the south side
of Winchester Road between 1-15 and the City limit to the northeast.
Q:
Does the proposed establishment provide entedainment that would fill a niche in the
community (i.e. a comedy dub. jazz club, etc.)
A: No. This project is not associated with entertainment. This cdteria is not applicable.
Q:
Would the proposed mode of operation of the preposed establishment (i.e. sales in
conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other
establishments in the area?
A: No.
Q:
Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. dyers, hillsides) or treffic bardere (i.e. freeways,
major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other
establishments?
A:
Yes. As mentioned above, The preposed facility is proposed to be located on the south side
of Winchester Road. This is on the "going home" side of Winchester Road and will offer
commuters, mail shoppers the ability to buy food, convenience items (including beer and
wine) as they head home. There currently are no convenience stores that sell beer and wine
on the south side of Winchester Road between 1-15 and the City limit to the northeast.
Q;
is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of
population dudrig certain seasonal pedods?
A:
Yes. Population is the area is expected to be stable, with the anticipated increase dudng the
holiday season between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Cdteria to Not Justify Making3 a Findine of Public Convenience or Necessity
Q:
Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed
establishment?
A:
No. As mentioned above, this would allow the first use of this type on the south side of
Winchester Road. On the north side if Winchester Road, in vicinity of the project, there are
five 'off-sale" establishments: Costco, Trader Joes, Ralph's Market, Chevron Mini-Mart and
a Convenience Store located on the northwest comer of the intersection of Ynez and
Winchester Roads.
Q: Are them any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in dose proximity (600
feet) to the proposed establishment?
A: No, there are no sensitive uses within 600 feet of the proposed establishment.
Q: Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses?
A: No.
Q:
Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by the
residents of the area?
A: No. There are no residents in proximity to the area.
Q: Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area?
A:
No. Staff contacted the Temecula Police [::)epadment regarding the proposed liquor license.
Police officers have no objections and anticipate that the proposed sale of organically-
produced beer and wine at the market and restaurant will not add substantially to law
enforcement problems in the area.
Number of similar uses within the City: There are 10 licenses issued to gas station/convenience
establishments within the City limits.
Number of other licensed establishments within 1 mile and 3 miles: There are 42 licensed
establishments (36 restaurants, 3 liquor stores/groceries, and 3 gas stations) with alcohol sales
within one mile of the proposed to gas station/convenience store. A throe-mile radius would include
existing licenses for 74 restaurants, 23 grocedes and 6 gas stations with alcohol sales.
Conclusion: Staff recommends the Planning Commission reviews the information included in this
report and make the appropriate finding.
Attachments:
Exhibits - Blue Page 5
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBITS
F:\DEFTS\pLANNING\staffrpt~uItramar pcn.doc
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
JLA
CASE NUMBER: Ultramar Gas Station
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8 1999
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SPECIFIC PLAN (SP)
/ ·
~ EP
sc
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
CASE NUMBER: Ultramar Gas Station
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8, 1999
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 1999
Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner and All Moghadam, Senior Engineer
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATIONINFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307(Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
EXISTING LAND USE:
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
and
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report, public testimony received at the public headng, and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Margarita Canyon LLC
Lohr & Associates/Markham and Associates
To subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10 commercial lots
and one open space lot (TPM 28627).
Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS-C (Conservation)
North: HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
South: OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential
East: Interstate 15
West: OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential
Vacant
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
1
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North: Gas Station/Mini-Mart
South: Vacant
East: 1-15, commercial retail center, apartments, single-family
residences
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Acreage for the Project (Gross)
Total Acreage for the Project (Net)
Number of Lots
Number of Open Space Lots
Average Lot Size (gross)
Average Lot Size (net)
Minimum Lot Size
36.8 acres
12.61 acres
10
1 (10.48 acres )
2.46 acres
1.26 acres
1.04 acres (gross)
0.51 acres (net)
BACKGROUND
An application for this project was formally submitted on September 8, 1997. A Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 9, 1997, with written comments being
provided shortly after. At the applicenrs request, this project originally went before the Planning
Commission on October 20, 1999 despite the fact that staff had not yet deemed the application
complete due to outstanding, unresolved traffic issues. As a consequence, at the October 20t~
meeting, staffs recommendation was for denial and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be
prepared. At this meeting, the item was continued to November 3, 1999, at the applicant's request.
At the November 3~d meeting, the Planning Commission granted staffs request to continue the
project in order provide staff time to consider options which potentially could mitigate the traffic
concerns which resulted in staff recommending denial and that an EIR be prepared. Since that
time, staff has evaluated various site access alternatives and has prepared a condition of approval
that will mitigate traffic impacts created by the applicant's proposal. Consequently, this report
presents analysis, findings and conditions which would allow staff to recommend approval of this
project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is a subdivision of approximately 37 acres into ten commercial lots and one open
space lot. The site is located adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, Murrieta Creek to the west and
Temecula Creek to the south. The applicant is proposing to extend Old Town Front Street from
its current intersection with the future Western Bypass Corridor into the project site ultimately
terminating in a cul-de-sac. As proposed, all the lots for development will front and take access
from the extension of Old Town Front Street.
The project proposes ten commercial lots ranging in size from 1.04 to 11.29 gross acres (0.51 to
4.64 net acres), Lots 7,8,9 and 10 all have significant areas which are within the 100-year
Floodway (Zone AE) and these areas are being excluded from development. The open space lot
which comprises 10.48 acres consists mainly of the Mumeta and Temecula Creek Channels. The
applicant is proposing to keep this area as open space in perpetuity with the future possibility that
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PAgT.PQ.doc
2
ownership can be transferred over to an appropriate agency or can be used for a mitigation land
bank.
Traffic Issues z ~: ,, - ~ ~.¢ ~/~::
The development of the project, as proposed by the applicant, is expected to cause a substantial
increase to traffic volumes on State Route 79 South/Western Bypass between Old Town Front
Street and the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange. Although the applicanrs traffic study and
subsequent revisions prepared by the applicanrs traffic consultant (Robert Kahn, John Kain and
Associates Inc.) indicates acceptable interim operating conditions, it is staff's opinion that the
proposed location of the project's access will adversely impact traffic flows in the vicinity of the
project, the Interstate 15/State Route 79 interchange and Old Town Front Street. Congestion and
difficult vehicular movements will occur at intersections within the projecrs vicinity due to
substandard intersection spacing (160 feet) between the 1-15 Southbound Ramp and Old Town
Front Street, and the traffic volumes generated by the proposed project (7,909 ADT).
Another concern is that the increased traffic volumes and the inadequate spacing between the I-15
ramps and the project access will increase conflicting vehicular movements. Because of the short
distance between intersections and the projected heavy left-turn movements into the project, I-15
southbound vehicles wishing to access the site will be forced into hazardous merging situations.
This situation will also cause the traffic to back-up on the I-15 southbound ramp while vehicles wait
to get an opportunity to enter the left-turn pocket in order to access the site. The anticipated heavy
left-tum movement into the site (351 vehicles dudng p.m. peak hour) and lack of adequate storage,
will also cause gridlock at the I-15 southbound ramp signal.
Problems related to safety, queuing, merging and weaving are of serious concem to both the City
and to Caltrans, which is responsible for the interchange and its signals. Because of safety and
traffic flow issues, Caltrens now specifies that new signals are to be located a minimum of 410 feet
from freeway ramp signals, with a preferred spacing of 525 feet. The many existing examples of
signals spaced much more closely to interchanges illustrate that even where operations have been
optimized as much as possible, acceptable traffic operation is rarely maintained during peak hours,
particularly as traffic volumes increase. The proposed project access is not directly subject to
Caltrans regulations; most significantly, Caltrans policy does not govern its placement because the
intersection is outside of Caltrans' right-of-way. Rather, Caltrans policy serves as a statewide
industry standard for proper prectico and design. In the case of a signal in such close proximity to
adjacent signals, the provision of space for queuing and to serve a variety of traffic movements is
critical. Although in this case the traffic signal cannot be relocated, the project's access driveway
to the site can be relocated to the west in order to reduce its impact to the nearby traffic signals.
this traffic movement will be required to tum right from the ramp; merge and weave across at least'
would have to be safely completed in a distance significantly less than the 160 feet betweerL~¢~
intersections. With the likelihood of forcad lane changes and rapid accaleration/deceleration within
the traffic stream, it is staffs opinion that this movement will greatly compromise safety and hamper
the flow of through traffic. Coupled with queued traffic between the interchange and the proposed
access location, the weaving movement is even more cumbersome and disruptive to traffic flow.
This operation will continually deteriorate with the significant increase in traffic volume f
within the City's General Plan. Queues extending through upstream intersections create significant
F:\DEFrS\PLANNING\STAFFRFr\307PA97.PC2.doc i ?..;
3
traffic problems. The resulting gridlock is disruptive to turning movements and cross-street flow,
and may impact motorist and pedestrian safety.
In summary, the location of the access road at the intersection of SR-79 (S) and Old Town Front
Street (as it is being proposed by the applicant) is contrary to proper engineering practice, and
insufficient spacing from existing signals will result in problematic queuing and weaving. As a
consequence traffic flow will be disrupted and motorist safety throughout the interchange area will
be reduced.
It should be noted that a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway
79(S), is not needed until the Western Bypass Corridor is constructed. However, the access to the
site as proposed, will necessitate operation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front
Street and Highway 79(S) which is 160 feet west of the I-15 southbound off-ramp. For reference,
the spacing between the intersections of Front Street/Jefferson Avenue and 1-15 southbound ramp
is approximately 600 feet on Rancho California Road and 400 feet on Winchester Road.
Caltrans and the City have requested that the applicant investigate the feasibility of moving their
access westerly to reduce the project's impacts to less than significant, but the applicant has
refused. Because the only remaining environmental concern is the project's access and the
resulting impacts to the intersection operations, staff proposes that the project be approved
conditionally with a condition requiring that the project be redesigned so that the access is
relocated westerly a minimum of 250 feet from the intersection of Old Town Front Street.
Staff recognizes that the relocation of the project's access westerly approximately 250 creates a
less than ideal situation. New challenges, such as offset access points and back to back left-turn
pockets between Old Town Front Street and the access point into the site are introduced. Moving
the access point westerly; however, reduces Caltrans' and staffs concerns related to merging,
intersection level of service and safety. Staff feels that the shortcomings associated with this
proposal are far less impactive to the operation of the southbound ramp signal and overall traffic
flow in the vicinity of the interchange, because by relocating the access to the west, a greater
distance is provided for the vehicles from the southbound off ramp to merge and weave to the
westbound left-turn lanes into the site. The additional spacing between the ramp signal and the
projecrs access, will improve safety and the operational capacity of Highway 79(S) by minimizing
grid locks and backing up the traffic on the I-15 southbound ramp. It should also be noted that
when the Western Bypass corridor is ultimately constructed, the access to the site could be
modified to provide for more efficient and safer circulation.
MaD Recon~guration
Staffs concerns relative to the proposed location of the project's access and the resulting traffic
impacts, has necessitated the addition of proposed conditions of approval which require the
applicant to redesign the project with the access relocated a minimum of 250 west of the current
proposed access point. Because these conditions require the redesign of the map, a number of
specific criteria have been included to insure that the project will still be in compliance with the
City's General Plan and Development Code, and it will not create any new environmental impacts.
These criteria which are contained within the conditions of approval include:
1)
2)
3)
F:\DEPTS',PLANNING\STAFFRFF\307PA97.PC2.doc
A revised map must be submitted to Public Works and Planning staff for approval
prior to final recordation of the map.
The redosigned map shall have the same number of lots and the same amount of
net developable acreage as was being proposed in the original map.
The redesigned map shall comply with all standards and requirements specified in
the Development Code.
4)
The redesign of map shall not disturb any dparian habitat, and development shall
occur completely outside the floodway.
When the applicant submits the redesigned map, in accordance with these conditions, staff will
review it to insure compliance with all the criteria specified above. Once staff is satisfied that all
these criteria have been met and has approved the map, it will then be moved forward for final
recordation.
Biological Issues
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property which includes portions of the
Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A biological impact report for the project site was
prepared. This report reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result
in the removal of 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acre
of the total Rivereidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodland within the boundaries of the project site.
It has been determined that impacts to biological resources and the loss of this habitat as a result
of this project will not be significant because: 1 ) the 30 acres of non-native grassland which will be
removed is not considered a significant resource; 2) the six acres of Riparian Woodlands will be
preserved; 3) and of the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub, 0.5 acres will be preserved on site
and the other 0.5 acres will be mitigated with the purchase of off-site property.
The Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved with the exception of 0.07
acres of area associated with a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows
into Murrieta Creek as identified within a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site conducted
by LSA Associates. For this small area, the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining
a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Federal Clean Water
Act and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
The project site contains significant biological resources and the proposed project has the potential
to impact these biological resources. However, these impacts will not be significant if the mitigation
measures described above and appropriate conditions of approval for this project are implemented.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared for this project and distributed on October 1, 1999. Findings within
this initial study indicated that the project, as the applicant is proposing it, would have a potentially
significant impact on the environment. This finding was based on the fact that the project will
significantly increase traffic volumes, which coupled with the fact that there is substandard and
limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the applicant proposes
the project will take access) and the 1-15 southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular
movements will result and hazardous merging situations will be created. As a consequence, staff
originally recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required for the project.
Since that time, staff has analyzed various alternative locations for the projecrs access and has
come to the conclusion that if the access point into the site is relocated approximately 250 feet west
of its current proposed location, the impacts associated with the limited spacing between
intersections and the resulting unsafe vehicular movements and the hazardous merging situations,
can be largely mitigated. Therefore, staff is proposing a condition of approval requiring that the
access into the site be relocated approximately 250 feet to the west, It is stafrs opinion that if this
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pA97 .PC2 .doe
condition is included and implemented, the concerns relating to the above discussed traffic impacts
can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and staff would recommend that the Planning
Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. If this condition is not included,
it is staffs opinion that the traffic impacts are not adequately mitigated and that this project may
have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, it is recommended that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the General Plan's policies and is also consistent with the zoning
standards regarding the HTC district as specified in the Development Code. The project as
proposed by the applicant, however, does not comply with the General Plan Circulation Element
Policy 1.2 which requires an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new
development pdor to project approval, and requires adequate mitigation measures prior to, or
concurrent with, project development; and Policy 1.4 which requires new development to pursue
trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion
at intersections and along streets within the City. It is staffs opinion, though, that if the condition
requiring the access into the site to be relocated approximately 250 west of the applicant's
proposed access point is included that the project is in compliance with all components of the
General Plan Circulation Element.
With respect to the applicant's proposal, where location of the access road into the site is only 160
from the intersection of the I-15 on and off ramps and the extension of the future Western Bypass
Corridor, it has been staffs position that although the traffic study and its subsequent revisions
prepared by the applicant's traffic consultant indicate an acceptable interim operation condition, the
project will increase traffic volumes, cause congestion and unsafe vehicular movements, and create
hazardous merging situations. Given these concerns with the applicanrs proposal, it would be
staffs recommendation that an EIR be prepared. However, if the project is conditioned to relocate
the project access 250 feet to the west of its current proposed location, staff feels that the traffic
concerns discussed above would be mitigated and that the project could be approved with a
mitigated negative declaration based upon the mitigation measures contained in the mitigation
monitoring program, the analysis and Findings within this staff report, and based on the conditions
of approval prepared for the project.
FINDINGS
Plannin~l Al~Dlication No. PA97-0307 {Tentative Parcel MaD 28627)
The proposed land division based the design or improvement of the project and as
conditioned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this report is compatible with the
General Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation Highway / Tourist.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan and Development Code. The project is consistent with these
documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to
assure that the development conforms to City Standards.
As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of,
prepedy within the proposed land division. The map proposes access to take access from
the future Western Bypass Corridor and will not obstruct any easements.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
6
As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is compatible
with the health, safety and welfare of the community and access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic
Engineer, Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These departments have
conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage
Scrub, a plant association that the California Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology
study for the site indicates that none of these animals inhabit the site. In addition, mitigation
measures that mitigate any potential impacts to wildlife and habitat have been included
within the design of the project and are included within the mitigation monitoring program
for the project. These mitigation measures address all impacts associated with the
development of the site and the potential impacts development of the site will have on
wildlife or habitat off-site.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 8
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12
Initial Study - Blue Page 13
Exhibits - Blue Page 14
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pA97 .PC'2.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
8
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627), A REQUEST
TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 COMMERCIAL
LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 ($)1 WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSE$SOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-
047)
WHEREAS, Margarita Canyon, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0307 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development. which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0307 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0307 on
October 20, 1999, November 17, 1999 December 8, 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 headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0307;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA97~0307, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of
County Ordinance No. 460:
A. The proposed land division based the design or improvement of the project and as
conditioned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this report is compatible with the General
Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation Highway / Tourist.
B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely
to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan and Development Code. The project is consistent with these documents and
conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development
conforms to City Standards.
C. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of,
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.I~C2 .doc
9
property within the proposed land division. The map proposes access to take access from the
future Western Bypass Corridor and will not obstruct any easements.
D. As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community and access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer,
Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These departments have conditioned the map
to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
E. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage Scrub,
a plant association that the California Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology study for the site
indicates that none of these animals inhabit the site. In addition, mitigation measures that mitigate
any potential impacts to wildlife and habitat have been included within the design of the project and
are included within the mitigation monitoring program for the project. These mitigation measures
address all impacts associated with the development of the site and the potential impacts
development of the site will have on wildlife or habitat off-site.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures descdbed in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28627) a
request to subdivide a 37 acre parcel into 10 commercial lots and one open space lot located
adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway 79
(S)/ Western Bypass Corridor (Assessor's Parcel Number 922-210-047),subject to the project
specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
10
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this eighth day of December, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, 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 eighth day of
December, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
11
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2-dOC
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
The subdivision of a 37-acre parcel into t0 commercial
lots and one open space lot
922-210-047
December 8, 1999
December 8, 2001
PLANNING DIVISION
Ten Calendar Days Prior to the CIty Council Hearing
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One
Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One
Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not
delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of such failure
of to satisfy this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No, 460, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner
of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
If subdivision phasing is proposed, a Dhasino plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Manager.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
The applicant shall receive approval for the purchase of off-site property from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Submit a mitigation
plan to the Planning Department which details how the applicant has set aside sensitive
areas and has met the requirements of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Dept, of Fish and Game for the off-site purchase of off-site property to compensate for the
taking of the Riversidian Sage Scrub on site.
Development of the site shall preserve the entire amount of Riparian Woodlands on site.
No grading or cleadng shall occur in this area. Development of the site shall be designed
so that all utility extensions are underground and that surface water run off and spillage
drains away from Murfieta and Temecula Creeks. This area shall be fenced off prior to any
grading activities to prevent any disturbances to wetland or vegetation areas. The project
will be conditioned to revegetate all graded and disturbed areas near the channels with
native tree and plant species. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to
insure project compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
10.
At the time of the submittal of a development proposal or the submittal of a grading plan for
the project site the applicant shall submit a biological survey at the appropriate time of the
year to determine if the Califomia Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or any
other endangered or threatened species inhabit the site. This biological survey shall
propose appropriate mitigation for development of the site. This biological survey shall be
submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and
Game for review and approval. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to
insure project compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
11,
The applicant shall obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a 1601
Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game. The
applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance with the
mitigation monitoring program.
12.
When future development is proposed on the site a Phase II archaeological study shall be
conducted. This study shall establish appropriate mitigation to address any significant
impacts that may occur.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
2
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1)
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
2) This project is within the 100-year floodplain.
3) This project is within a dam inundation area.
4) This project is within a Liquifaction Zone.
5) This project is within a Subsidence Zone.
c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
1)
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all
buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
2)
No lot or unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to
meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty
to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions
required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence
of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior
to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes.
3)
Every owner of a unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such unit or lot,
either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a
share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the
common areas and facilities.
4)
In addition to the other provisions described in this section which must be
included in the CC&Rs, the applicant shall also include the following text in
the CC&Rs:
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM),doc
3
Consent of City of Temecula
Condition No. 15,C,1) of the Conditions of Approval of Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627)
require the City to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Tract,
Declarant acknowledges that the City has reviewed these CC&Rs
and that its review is limited to a determination of whether the
proposed CC&Rs propedy implement the requirements of the
Conditions of Approval for the Tract. The City's consent to these
CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the
appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs,
including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements
and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture
and landscape controls, assessments procedures, assessment
enforcement, resolution of disputes or procedural matters.
C=
In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the
land use entitlements issued by the City for the Tract or federal,
state or local laws, ordinances, and resolutions and these CC&Rs,
the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and federal, state or
local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding
the language of the CC&Rs.
These CC&Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise
modified without the express written consent of the Planning
Manager of the City of Temecula.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
4
Consent of the City of Temecula
Condition No. 15.C.1) of the Conditions of Approval of Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627)
requires the City of Temecula to review and approval the CC&Rs for
the Tract. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a
determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement
the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Tract. The
City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any
approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of
the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private
easements and encroachments, pdvate maintenance requirements,
architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of
assessments, resolution of disputes or procedural matters. Subject
to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs.
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Approved as to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attomey
i' 14. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 28627) shall be redesigned so that the proposed
L~._ ,:~'-: access road into the site is a minimum of 250 feet west of the intersection of existing Front
~ Street and Highway 79(S) (the future Western Bypass Corridor). This revised map must
. II'~ be submitted to Public Works and Planning staff for approval prior to final recordation of the
~'L~/ map. The redesigned map shall have the same number of lots and the same amount of net
] t? . ,'
developable acreage as was being proposed in the original map. The redesigned map shall
· comply with all standards and requirements specified in the Development Code.
Development of the site shall not disturb any riparian habitat and shall occur completely
outside the floodway.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
15.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however
solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning
Director approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
16.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
5
General Requirements
17.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
18.
A Grading Permit for either rough or predse grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works pdor to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
19.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
20.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
21.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
22.
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 shall be redesigned to locate the proposed southerly
access road a minimum of 250 feet west of the intersection of existing Front Street
and Highway 79 South. The parcel configuration and alignment of access road shall
be revised to reflect westerly entrance into the subdivision.
Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
23.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Rancho California Water Distdct
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· CabLe 'FV Franchise
· Caltrans
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
· Fish & Game
· Army Corps of Engineers
24. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works:
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'I~307pa97.COA{TPM).doc
6
25.
26.
27.
The proposed southerly access road shaft be located a minimum of 250 feet
westerly of the centerline of the intersection of existing Front Street and Highway
79 South, The location and alignment of the access road shah be approved by the
Director of Pub~c Works and the Planning Director, Tentative Parcel Map 28627
shaft be revised to reflect the realignment of the access road and the revised
parcel configuration,
The Developer shall offer for dedication for street right-of-way the portion of Lot
11, Town of Temecula, Map Book 15, Page 726, San Diego County, lying north
of the southerly of the southedy right-of-way line of the future extension of the
Western Bypass Corridor.
Improve the access road (Principal/Industrial Collector Street Standard No. 103 -
78' R/W) from the future extension of the Western Bypass Corridor including the
section extended along the entire easterly boundary of and within the underlying
lot described as Lot 11, Town of Temecula, Map Book 15, Page 726, San Diego
County, to the terminus of the proposed cul-de-sac to include dedication of full
width street right-of-way, installation of full width street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans:
Street canterline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C,C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or
208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No, 113.
All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground, Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT'~307pa97.COA(TPM).dOC
7
28.
Relinquish and waive dght of access to and from Western Bypass Corridor and State
Route 79 South on the Parcel Map.
29.
Comer property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
30,
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or
abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
31.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of
an existing Assessment Distdct must comply with the requirements of said section.
Prior to City Council approval of the Parcel Map, the Developer shall make an
application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
32. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
33,
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the
Parcel Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with
the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department and Public
Works Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the
ECS:
The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
Special Study Zones.
Geotechnicel hazards identified in the projecrs geotechnical report.
Archeologicel resources found on the site.
34.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
35.
The Developer shall provide a development agreement addressing their participation in
the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor. The form of the development
agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney,
Alternatively, the Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all
rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities
District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee Distdct for the construction of the
proposed "Western Bypass Corridor' or "Medians in accordance with the General Plan".
The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City
Attorney,
36.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation Distdct for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the
issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way.
37. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).dOC
8
38. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
39.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works,
40.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan"
in accordance with Ordinance No, 93-01.
41,
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the Parcel Map.
42.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
43.
Easements for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcel Map
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first,
44.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Parcel Map if they are located within the
land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for
review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage
facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage
easements and shown on the Parcel Map. A note shall be added to the Parcel Map
stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
45.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Caltrans
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
46.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City
of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion,
47,
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).dOC
9
48.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering
geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan
check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical
hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report
shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and
liquefaction.
49.
Provisions to mitigate drainage and the storm drain improvements as shown on
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 are conceptual and may require modification. The design
of the storm drain system will be determined upon review and approval of the grading
and storm drain improvement plans. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the
initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities
expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all
existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to
discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of
receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property, The study
shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or
upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be
provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall
be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
50.
This development must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board and Ordinance No. 99-10. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice
of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt, Direct discharge of
runoff from the site into Murrieta Creek is prohibited and urban pollutants shall be
mitigated as approved by the Department of Public Works.
51.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
52.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
53.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
54.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A"
and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans,
the Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15, 12 of the
Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Plain
Development Permit is required prior to issuance of any permit. Commercial
subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion.
55.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a
F:\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
10
format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following
criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
Identity and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway,
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the improvement plan.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
56. Parcel Map 28627 shall be approved and recorded.
57.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report
addressing compaction and site conditions.
58.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
59.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code
and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
60.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Department of Public Works
61.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
62.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
63.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97,COA{TpM),Cioc
11
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit
64.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
fees,
FIRE DEPARTMENT
65.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are
in force at the time of building plan submittal.
66.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall previde for this
project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted dudng the approval
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection
measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
67.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 350 feet apart and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the
street or Fire Department access read(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall
be available frem any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire
hydrants may be required, (CFC 903.2, 903.4,2, and Appendix Ill-B)
68.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
69.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
70.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
appreved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent reads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access reads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
71.
Pdor to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
72.
Fire Department vehicle access reads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-bur (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).dOC
12
73.
74.
75.
76.
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards,
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures, The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2,2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Special Conditions
77.
78,
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the
wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures
shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or
block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A)
OTHER AGENCIES
79.
80,
81.
82.
,!i/" i/'83'
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 2, 1997, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated November 10, 1997, a copy
of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated October 1, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated October 13, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) transmittal dated October 20, 1997, a copy of which is
attached.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).Cloc
13
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TpM).doc
14
October 2, 1997
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE * HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTI-
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
ATTN: John De Gange:
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627: A PORTION OF THE TOWN OF TEMECULA
AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15, PAGE 726 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF THE RANCH TEMECULA,
WHICH RANCHO WAS GRANTED BY PATENT DATED JANUARY 18, 1860, AND
RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
IN LIBER 1 OF PATENTS AT PAGE 37 THEREOF, AND A PORTION OF THE PAUBA
LAND AND WATER COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION OF TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN
BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 11, PAGE 507 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(14 LOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627 and
recommends:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the
original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. location
of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of
the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1.
Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, Califomia Administrative Code, Title 11,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Parcel Map No.
28627 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide
~vater service to such Parcel Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will
supply water to such Parcel Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or
any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water
company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least TWO
WEEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map.
John M. Fanning, Director
4065 County Circie Drive ,. Riverside, CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017
(Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Riverside, CA 92513-7600)
City of Temecula Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn.: John De Gangc
October 2, 1997
This subdivision has a statement from Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to serve domestic
water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial
arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to
be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map.
This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the
sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the
City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete
profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to
the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the
sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in
Parcel Map No. 28627 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern
Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the
anticipated wastes from the proposed Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of
Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the
final map.
It will be necessary, for financial arrangements to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to recordation of
the final map.
It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to the
recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
Gregor Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
DAVID P. ZAPPE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
November 10, 1997
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
909/275 - 1200
909/788-9965 FAX
42125.1
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: Mr. John De Gange
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Parcel Map 28627
PA 97-0307
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or
other land use cases in incorporated Cities. The District also does not plan
check City land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters
or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District
comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan
facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could
be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and
District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition,
information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed
the proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project
with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such
issue.
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 is a proposal for subdivision of 33.9 acres into
14 commercial lots along the future extension of Front Street, southeast of
the intersection of Highway 79 and Interstate 215.
This project is subject to Severe flood hazard from Murr~eta Creek. The
southwestern portion of the site is within the 100 year Zone AE flood plain
limits for Murrieta Creek as delineated on Panel No. 060742 OOIOA of the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the National Flood
Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). The District's confluence study of Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek,
determined the lO0-year flood elevation to vary between 994.0 and 994.5.
All the elevations on the District maps are based on 1929 NGVD. The high
water mark during the flood of Janaury 1993 was 991.5. The pad elevations
shown on the drawing is above the elevation for the Districts confluence
study. Because of the extreme hazard posed by Murrieta Creek, the City
should consider not allowing development to proceed adjacent to the creek
until the ultimate improvement can be constructed. Property adjacent to the
creek and within the flood plain should be conditioned to construct the
required improvements or participate in a financing mechanism such as an
assessment district to ensure necessary improvements are constructed.
City of Temecula
Re: Parcel Map 28627
PA 97-0307
-2- November 10, 1997
If the City chooses to allow development to proceed, it should condition the
application to provide all studies, calculations, plans or other information
needed to meet FEMA requirements. This project is located within the limits
of the District's Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which
drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier's
check or money order to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance
of building or grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in
effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
Questions regarding this matter may be directed to me at 909/275-1214.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. HCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
SM:slj
John F. Hennigar
PhiHip L Forbes
October 1, 1997
Mr. John De Gange
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAP 28627, APN 922-210-047
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307
Dear Mr. De Gange:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District).
Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD
for fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any,
to RCWD.
The District requests that all easements dedicated to the Rancho
California Water District be shown on the recorded parcel map.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97/SB:eb194/F012/FCF
c: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor
C:ALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Elite Information Center
DeDarrnent of Anthropology
UnNersity of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Pllone {909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
October 13, 1997
John De Gange
City of Tcmecula
Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Case No,: PA97-0307
Applicant: Jim Robera (Margarita Canyon LLC)
Dear Mr. De Gange:
Please fred enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning
Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at
(909) 787-5745 (please specify the case number and the date on which we submitted our
comments).
PA-0307 ............................................. ASAP
Sincerely,
Jennifer Bybee
Information Officer
Enclosure
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
UnP~rsity of C~lifomia
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phorle (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAl, RESOURCE RF, VI ',W
DATE: October 13, 1997
RE: Case Transmitul Reference Designation: PA97-0307
Records at the Eastern Inforn~tion Center of the California I-~istofical Resources Infornmtion System have been
revieweti to d~termlne if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The propo.ed project .if4 has not be~n surveyed for culmnl re.o~tces and contains or is adjacent to known culmnl ruout=e(s). A
Pha.~ I study is recommended.
X A Fna~ I eulmnl ~ou~e study (MF I 991) idemi~e~l one or mot~ cultural ruo~rees.
A Fnag I cultural nsouree study (MF #
__ Due to the trehaeotogieal sensitivity of the a~a. earthmoving dunng eonseuction should be monitor~l by · professional archaeologist.
X The submiuion of a cultural t~n~yat~e management ripoft is neonunended following guidelines for A~haeological Reseuree Managen~nt
Reporu pnpand by the California Office of Hiszotic Preservation, Preser~aaon planning Builtan 4(a), I3ecemb~r 1989.
Pho.~l
COMMENTS: Two sites fall w~thin this project area. Although one site has been partinlly te~ted, both sites should
be thoroughly tested to determine their significance before grading or construction occurs. l~oth sites are listed on
the Natiotml Re~ister es pa~ of the Murriet~ Creek Archaeological District.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
s, (
STAT~ OF CALIFORNIA. BUSINESS, T~ANSPORTATION A~D HOUSING AGENCY
- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNA~DINO, CA 92402
TDD (909) 383-4609
October 20, 1997
Mr. John I. DeGange
Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planrang Depatmzent
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. DeGange:
08-Riv-15-3.1/3.7
Planning Application No. PA 97~0307: Tentative Parcel Map 28627
A recent review of this proposal by Caltrans' Traffic Engineers has made it clear this
proposal is not acceptable as presented on Tentative Parcel Map 28627, dated September 1997.
Their findings are as follows:
The proposed access to Front Street is too close to the existing 1-15 ramps to be
safe and provide acceptable traffic patterns on the city' s street as well as the 1-15
ramps.
· It is in conflict with a plan by the city to upgrade Front Street and the ramps
terminating there as well as the city's proposed future "Western Bypass."
If this proposal is to go forward it must propose a different point of access to the
local road system. Perhaps a connection to the city's proposed "Western Bypass"
would be a more suitable location.
Please send the following to this office at the earliest opportunity:
· Grading Plans shall depict both existing and proposed contour lines.
· Drainage Plans shall depict all existing and proposed drainage facilities and
structures, including any State facilities.
· Site/Plot Plans.
· Landscaping Plans shall depict all proposed signage in addition to landscaping
layout.
Mr. John I. DeGange
October 20, 1997
Page 2
· Street Improvement Plans -- shall depict all proposed improvements, including
signalization.
· Additional items of concern may be expressed upon receipt of the above requested
documents.
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen at (909) 383-5922 or FAX
(909) 383-7934.
Very truly yours,
/, --- -/~- ,
Chief, Office of Riverside County
Transportation Planning
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307PA97.PC2.dOC
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map 28627
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
John De Gange, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
Margarita Canyon LLC
27740 Jefferson, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC)
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
A proposal to subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10
commercial lots and one open space lots (TPM 28627)
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property, which
includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels.
The site is adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, commercial areas to
the north across the future Western Bypass Corridor, a vacant open
space area across Temecula Creek to the south, and a vacant area
zoned Hillside Residential area to the west across Murrieta Creek.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health
Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone
Company, and Riverside Transit Agency
Location Map
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.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 the checklist on the following pages,
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources Population and Housing
Air Quality
Biological Resources Water
Cultural Resources
Geologic Problems
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrolo.qy and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportationrrraffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Earlier Analyses
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the 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, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
=S
John De Ganee, Project Planner
Printed name
For
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
2
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and histodc building
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or 91are which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Potentially
S~gnificant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
1.a.
No Impact. The project site is adjacent to Interstate 15 and the ultimate development of the site will
not directly impact any scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where
there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. As a
consequence no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project or the future
development of the site.
1.b.
No Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. The project
site includes a portion of the Murrieta Creek Channel, however, the project as proposed will preserve
the channel and all future development will not directly impact the channel. There are no scenic
resources within the project site within the view of a scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant
impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed project or the future development of the site.
1.C.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property, which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majority of
the site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one
acre). The portion of the site, which consists of drainage channels, could potentially have significant
visual character given the presence of Riparian Woodland vegetation. The ultimate complete
development of all 37 acres of the property would significantly degrade the visual character and quality
of the site and surrounding properties. As mitigation, the project proposes to preserve the entire six
acres of Riparian Woodland and one half acre of the one acre portion of the Riversidian Sage Scrub.
For the one half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that will be developed, the project proponent will be
required to purchase one half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub off-site in compliance with the
requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Communities Conservation
Program (NCCP) [based on the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart contained in Attachment "A" of the
Biologicel Impact Report]. After mitigation, any potential impacts could be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
1.d.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Though this project only represents a
subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the ultimate buildout on the property will have a
potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as
all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to
impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with
Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). After mitigation, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - ~:lS2.doc
3
2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Iml)act Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
2a.,2c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the histodc past has not
ever formerly been used for agricultural purposes. In addition this property is not considered prime or
unique of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. In addition, the project
will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland
to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue.
2b.
No Impact. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula,
and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there is no impact
related to this issue.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
4
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporated impact Impact
Comments:
3.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project represents only a subdivision of vacant property
into commercial lots; however, the analysis within this document has evaluated the potential
development of the site with commercial uses. The project as proposed will comply with State and
national ambient air quality standards. Although the project exceeds the air quality management
policies in the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and emissions thresholds established in
South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993),
the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has addressed development of the site and proposed
adequate mitigation for any impacts. The analysis provided in 3b. below, discusses the project's
compliance with the AQMP. Therafore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans
will result from the proposed project
3.b.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project represents only a subdivision of vacant property into
commercial lots; however, this analysis has evaluated the potential development of the site with
commercial uses. The project proposes to provide for 12.61 net acres of developable land, Pursuant
to the City of Temecula's Development Code this site can ultimately be developed with 164,788
square feet of commercial uses based on a target Floor Area Ratio of 0,30. Though this figure
exceeds the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) threshold for impacts associated
with commercial development, this figure is consistent with target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) anticipated
within the City's General Plan. The General Plan established target floor area ratios within various
land uses in order to determine the intensity of uses and the impacts upon the environment. The
General Plan EIR evaluates the impacts of development at the target FAR. The analysis conducted
for this project assumes that the ultimate development of the site will be at the target FAR for the
Highway/Tourist zoning district. It is anticipated that the development of the site will be less than the
densities anticipated by the General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. The General
Plan EIR has established mitigation measures for impacts associated with air quality through The
General Plan's policies and guidelines. Consequently a less than significant impact is anticipated as a
result of this project.
R:~CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
5
3,c.
3.d.
3.e.
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item b. above, though the project when ultimately
developed, will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Apdl 1993) thresholds for
impacts associated with commercial development, the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has
addressed the impacts to air quality for a project on this site and established appropriate mitigation
measures. Therefore, all potential impacts resulting from cumulative net increases of any criteria
poliutants have been addressed within the policies and guidelines of the City of Temecula's EIR and
mitigated for. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout on the property may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the
project. These impacts, however, will be short in duration and are not considered to be significant.
Consequently no impacts would result from this project.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
6
Comments:
4.a.,b.,d.
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property, which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majority of
the site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Ripadan Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one
acre).
A biological impact report for the project site was prepared by Principe and Associates in December of
1997. This study reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result in the
removal of all 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acres of the
total Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian Woodland
within the boundaries of the project site. The study determined that the habitat within the Non-Native
Grassland, however is not considered to be a significant biological resource and the loss of this habitat
is not considered to be significant.
Development of the project site will also result in the removal of 0.5 acres of the one-acre total of
Riversidian Sage Scrub that is considered a Sensitive Natural Plant Community. The study
determined that based on the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart included within the Southern California
Coastal Sage Scrub, Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), Conservation Guidelines
(Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Nov. 1993), the onsite Riversidian Sage Scrub has a lower potential
value for long-term conservation given the fact that it is unoccupied by the Coastal California
Gnatcatcher, and given that it is a small isolated patch with no linkage to any other similar habitat.
The project site also contains six acres of Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands. As
proposed; however, the project preserves almost the entire area with exception of 0.07 acres of area
associated with a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows into Murrieta
Creek as identified within a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site was conducted by LSA
Associates. For this small area the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining a Section
404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water
Act and a Section 1601 Streambed alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
As mitigation for potential impacts created by the proposed project to the 30 acres of Non-Native
Grassland and the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub the applicant shall be conditioned to: 1) comply
with the requirements established in the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Long-term Habitat Conservation
Plan, primarily through the payment of a mitigation fee; 2) preserve the 0.5 acre portion of Riversidian
Sage Scrub on site and mitigate the loss of the other 0.5 acres with the purchase of off-site habitat at a
ratio of 1:1 as deemed appropriate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Calif. Dept. of Fish
and Game in compliance with the interim goals established within the NCCP Program; 3) preserve the
entire six acres of Riparian Woodlands habitat; 4) comply with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
protocol and obtain clearance for the Endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly by conducting
additional field surveys prior to the issuance of grading permits to determine if the host plant for the
species are present in which case an adult survey would be required; 5) design future development
plans so that surface waters and spills drain away from Murrieta and Temecula Creeks in order to
avoid runoff contamination; 6) install utility extensions underground; 7) revegetate all graded and
disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and plant species in order to reduce impacts from
the project; 7) the applicant shall be required to prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project
compliance to the mitigation measures contained in this document.
With the implementation of the above mentioned mitigation measures and associated conditions of
approval for this project, the impacts associated with project would be reduced to less than significant.
R:\CEQA%307PA97 - EIS2.doc
7
4.c.
4.e.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. In October of 1998 a Wetlands Delineation
study for the project site was conducted by LSA Associates. The study determined that approximately
5.62 acres of the site met the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cdteda for jurisdictional wetlands and
5.93 acres fell within the jurisdiction of the Calif. Department of Fish and Game. Of the acreage
delineated as jurisdictional wetlands a 0.07-acre portion of the site is proposed to be filled which will
result in the loss of wetlands and ripadan habitat. The lost wetlands area will be from a small-
unnamed drainage channel which runs through the center of the project and flows into Murrieta Creek.
The wetlands areas within Murrieta and Temecula Creeks will be unaffected.
The loss of the wetlands/jurisdiction waters will require the project proponent to obtain a 404 Permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineere pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and a
Section 1601 Streambed alteration permit administered by the California Department of Fish and
Game. As mitigation for the lost wetlands the applicant will be required to obtain the necessary
permits from the above referenced agencies pdor to the issuance of grading permits. After mitigation,
this project would have a less than significant impact.
No ImpacL The City of Temecula does not have any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, therefore there is no impact associated with this project relative to this issue.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition, the
subject site contains approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that places the property within
the jurisdiction of the NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with all requirements
of the NCCP program or develop their own habitat plan under the provisions of the NCCP. As a
consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human ramains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated impact Impact
Comments:
5.a,
No Impact. Based on a previously conducted Phase I cultural resource study it has been determined
that there are no known historical resources on site, which the project would impact. As a
consequence no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan and an earlier
Archaeological Investigation conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit at the University of
California at Riverside in December of 1988 identifies a sensitive archaeological area along Murrieta
Creek which may extend into the subject site. Due to the potential for deposits in the area and at the
recommendation of the UCR Eastern Information Center (within correspondence dated October 13,
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
8
5.c.
1997), future development of the proposed site will be required to conduct a Phase II archeological
investigation on site pdor to the approval any development project. It is anticipated that when future
development is proposed on the site and a Phase 11 archaeological study is conducted that this study
would propose mitigation to address any significant impacts that may occur. As a consequence a less
than significant impact is anticipated.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan identifies that the
area could potentially be within a highly sensitive paleontological area. Due to the potential for
deposits in the area, future development of the proposed site will be conditioned to have an on site-
monitor during grading operations. The potential for future significant impacts will be determined and
fully mitigated when future development proposals are considered. As a consequence, a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
b.
C.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Less Then
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
Comments:
No ImpacL There are no known or identified earthquake faults as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
9
6.a.ii, iv,b., and d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. There may be a potentially significant
impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, soil erosion, or expansive soils.. Although. there
are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is located in Southern California, an area
that is seismically active. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building
construction, which is consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be
conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are
followed dudng construction. The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of
the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are
performed, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project,
6.c.,a.iii
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site
may have a significant impact on people involving liquefaction and subsidence or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill Potential impacts could be mitigated by compliance with
State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the
development and shall contained recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to
mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of
approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils.
After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this
project.
6.e.
No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate
development of the site will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
10
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crate a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant dsk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
7.8.
No Impact. Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout of the property will involve construction. Construction associated with the
development of the property will involve the use of chemical agents, solvents, paints and other
hazardous materials that are associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals
present during construction, however, is limited and is not considered a significant hazard. As a
consequence, no significant impact is expected form the routine use and disposal of these materials.
7.b.
No Impact. The future development of the site will be commercial uses. It is anticipated that the
future uses within the project site will not store or house large quantities of hazardous material that
would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:%CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
7.c,
7.d.
7.e.,f.
7.g.
7.h.
No Impact. Future development of the project site will be with commercial uses. This site is not within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The operation of construction equipment and
machinery during the development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and or handle
some hazardous material. However, these emissions and material should be of limited quantities over
a short duration of time. Since this project site in not within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school, and will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, OF acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, no impacts are
anticipated.
No Impact. This project site is not nor is it located near a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project,
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public or pdvate airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. This project site is adjacent to 1-15 to the east and Murrieta Creek to the west. Though
the site is located in the vicinity of large open space areas, it is not located in a high fire area. As a
consequence no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA%307PA97 - EIS2.doc
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated Impact Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ,,/
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site ,/
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or dver, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ,/'
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ,/
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ,/'
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ,/
Comments:
8.a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subdivision, and subsequent development,
will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be
permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By
complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than
significant. With mitigation a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.f. No Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
R:\CEQA~307PA97 - EIS2.doc
8.c.d.
8.e.
8.g.
8.h.i.
8j,
local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on
the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some
changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected
whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be
rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site
design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff
that is created. A less than significant impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the
future commercial development, the project will not create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. The project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage
created as a result of the subject site. In addition, the project will be conditioned so that the drainage
will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project.
No ImpacL This project represents a subdivision of properly into commercial parcels. Since no
residential property is effected, no impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project may expose people or
property to water related hazards such as flooding. According to the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, the project site is in area that is subject to severe flood hazard from
Murrieta Creek. Further, the site is located within the limits of the 100-year (Zone AE)
floodplain/floodway as delineated on Panel No. 060742 0010B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
issued in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In its current configuration; however, the project is
designed with all pads for future development being elevated above the floodway/floodplain. This
project and all future development of the site will be conditioned so that the developer will be required
to file a floodplain development permit with the appropriate approvals from the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District if any portion of the site is to be developed within the
floodplain. In addition, future development will be conditioned to pay a mitigation charge to the
Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Drainage Plan.
In addition, the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecuta
General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing
emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate
service provision as the City develops. With the incorporation of mitigation measures a less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these
events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2,doc
14
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Then
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
Comments:
9a.,b.
No Impact. The subject site is vacant and is bordered by Murrieta Creek on the west and Interstate
15 on the east. These two features provide an existing physical barrier to the surrounding properties
to the east and west. The property to the north is comprised primarily of existing commercial uses.
The properties to the west and south are vacant and zoned Open Spaca. Therefore, the proposed
subdivision of this property will not conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance). As a consequence no impact is associated with this
project.
g.c.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition,
according to a biological study conducted by Principe and Associates in December of 1997 the subject
site contains approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that places the property within the
jurisdiction of the NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with the NCCP program
or develop their own habitat conservation plan under the provisions of the NCCP program. As a
consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
15
Comments:
10.a.b. No ImpacL The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss
of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified
the City of Temecula a classification of MP, Z-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have
the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However,
these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon
available data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or pedodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
11.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project site is designated for commercial development. The site
is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during
construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, long-term
noise generated by this project would be within the limits of the General Plan standards for commercial
development. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
11.b.
No Impacts. Development of the project site will be with commercial uses. It is anticipated that the
uses conducted on site will not generate activities that would expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
11.c.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will ultimately result in the development of the site with
commercial uses that will create noise levels greater than that currently emanating from the vacant
land. However, those noises will not be substantial or constant and are not anticipated to create a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
16
11.d.
11 .e.f.
without the project. Therefore, only less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient
noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of
100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered annoying. However, this source of noise from construction
of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore,
construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in residential
areas. A less than significant impact would be anticipated.
No impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore,
people residing in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an
airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
12.a.
No ImpacL The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HT). The proposed subdivision will eventually result in the development of commercial
uses, which will cause some people to relocate to, or within the Temecula area. However, due to its
limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.c. No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site
is vacant property zoned Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). Therefore, the project will neither
displace housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
13.
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:
Less Than
Potentially Significan! With Less Than
Significant Mitigation S~gni~cant No
impact Incorporated Impact Imgact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Would the project result in substantial adverse physicel
impacts associates with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
b. Fire protection? ,/'
c. Police protection? ,/
d. Schools?
e. Parks? ,/'
f. Other public facilities?
Comments:
13.a.,b.,c.,e.,f.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally
increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through the
City's Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Due
to the project's relative small scale, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
13.d.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to
relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the
payment of applicable School Fees. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - BS2,doc
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require ,/'
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Comments:
14.a.b. Less Than Significantlrnpact. The project will have a less than significant impact in the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an
incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or
opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated ~mpact Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ,/
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ,/'
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ,/'
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
19
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
Comments:
15.a.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development of the project and
its proposed access on the south side of Highway 79 SouthNVestern Bypass at Front Street, will cause
a substantial increase in traffic and could have potential for significant impact at this intersection and
the 1-15 southbound ramps.
Due to the substandard and limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street and 1-
15 southbound ramp signal (160 feet) and the high traffic volumes generated by the project (7,909
ADT), congestion and unsafe vehicular movements could be expected at intersections in the vicinity of
the project. There is a particular concern with the west bound left turn movement into the site. Traffic
attempting to enter the project could potentially back up to the southbound I-15 ramp signal.
Although the traffic study prepared by the applicants consultant and its subsequent revisions indicate
acceptable interim operation conditions, staff believes that the site access as proposed, will adversely
impact the traffic flow in the vicinity of the project at the I-15 interchange,
Staff has determined that if the site access is relocated approximately 250 feet to the west which
effectively eliminates the extension of Old Town Front Street to the south of Highway 79(S)/Western
Bypass Corridor, the impacts to the left turn into the site will be lessened. As a result, the project has
been conditioned to modify the project's access to a location 250 feet from the current proposed
alignment, With the incorporation of this condition is has been determined that after mitigation is
incorporated this project will have a less than significant impact.
15.b. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. This project could potentially
cumulatively exceed the level of service standard (LOS "E") established within the County's
Congestion Management Plan (CMP). State Highway 79(S), and Interstate 15 are roads which am
within the County's CMP. Though the traffic study conducted by the applicant's traffic engineer states
otherwise, City staff has determined that this project will be responsible for a significant increase in
traffic volumes. This increase in traffic volumes coupled with the close spacing between the
intersection at the extension of Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass Corridor with the
southbound on and off ramps for 1-15, may lead to congestion and gridlock on State Highway 79(S)
and could potentially cause southbound traffic on 1-15 to back up. As a consequence a potentially
significant impact may result from this project.
If the site access is relocated approximately 250 feet to the west of the current proposed alignment, a
greater distance for vehicle merging will be provided. This will be particularly beneficial to vehicles
making a left turn into the site from the south bound 1-15 off ramp, Relocating the access to the
proposed location west of the applicant's current proposed location will increase the merging distance
from 160 feet to approximately 400 feet. This will reduce the project's impact on Highway 79(S)/
Western Bypass Corridor. The project will be conditioned to modify the project's access to a location
250 feet from the current proposed alignment. With the incorporation of this condition is has been
determined that after mitigation is incorporated this project will have a less than significant impact.
15.c.
No Impact. Neither the subdivision of the project site nor the future development of this property will
result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks. This site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight
oveday district and therefore will have no impact on the project.
15.d. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project could
substantially increase hazards due the location of the intersection of the extension of Old Town Front
Street and the Western Bypass Corridor in terms of its spacing with the southbound on and off ramps
R;\CEQA~307PA97 - EIS2.doc
20
15.e.
15.f.
15.g.
for 1-15. After reviewing the traffic study and subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's
consultant, City staff has determined that the project will generate significant traffic volumes. These
increased traffic volumes coupled with the close spacing between the intersection at the extension of
Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass Corridor with the southbound on and off ramps for 1-15,
may lead to significant traffic congestion which could result in traffic backing up on lanes on the south
bound I-15.
If the site access is relocated approximately 250 feet to the west from the current proposed alignment,
a greater distance for vehicle merging will be provided for. This will be beneficial to vehicles exiting
from the south bound 1-15 off ramp which would be making a left turn into the site. Relocating the
access to the proposed location to the west of the applicant's current proposed location will increase
the merging distance from 160 feet to approximately 400 feet. This will reduce the projecrs impact on
Highway 79(S)/Western Bypass Corridor and will ultimately reduce the possibility of having traffic
backing up on lanes on the south bound 1-15. The project will be conditioned to modify the projecrs
access to a location 250 feet from the current proposed alignment. With the incorporation of this
condition is has been determined that after mitigation is incorporated this project will have a less than
significant impact.
Less Than Significant Impact, This project is a subdivision of vacant property into commercial lots
and as a consequence it is difficult to determine what the ultimate impacts on emergency access will
be at this time. All subsequent development projects on parcels within this project will be evaluated to
determine the impacts to emergency access. Future development of the site will be conditioned to
meet all applicable standards in place at the time of development. Emergency access to nearby uses
will not be affected by this project given that the project is generally surrounded by undevelopable
properties. As a consequence the project will have a less than significant impact.
No Impact, This project represents a subdivision of vacant land into commercial lots, no specific
development is being proposed at this time. Consequently it is not possible to determine specific
parking requirements for the site; however, any subsequent development of the proposed parcels will
be required to comply with the City's Development Code parking requirements for commercial uses.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed does not currently conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. When future development is
proposed for the site, individual projects will be reviewed to determine if the provision of alternative
transportation opportunities will be appropriate. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is
anticipated.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water ,/'
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
21
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ,/
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ,f
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
16.a.,b., e.
No Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction
of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an
incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for
the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly
impact wastewater services." Sinca the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply
with the Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of
Public Works. No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.c.
No Impact. The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The
development of the tract will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
on site that will connect to the existing system currently in place along Old Town Front Street at the
northern end of the site. The design of the existing system is sufficient handle this project and will not
require the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. Drainage fees are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District to reimburse the county for the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage
Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.d.
No Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded
water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the
project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply
as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation
of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the
project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
16.f.g.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any
potential impacts from solid waster created by this development can be mitigated through participation
in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
22
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
C,
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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 of
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that 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?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Segni~cant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
17.a.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site has
potential to impact habitat for fish or wildlife species. The project proposes to disturb 0.5 acres of
Riversidian Sage Scrub, however, if the project were approved mitigation measures would be included
to reduce this to a less than significant impact. In addition, the project proposes to disturb 0.07 acres
of wetlands. If approved the project would be conditioned to mitigate this impact by obtaining a
Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 1601 Permit from the Calif. Dept.
of Fish and Game. A less than significant impact would result if mitigation measures are incorporated.
17.b.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project could have a potentially
significant impact with respect to traffic impacts. City staff has determined that the project could
potentially generate increased traffic volumes, which could cumulatively effect traffic in the vicinity of
the project. However, if the site access is relocated approximately 250 feet to the west of the current
proposed alignment, a greater distance for vehicle merging will be provided for. This will be beneficial
to vehicles exiting from the south bound t-15 off ramp which would be making a left turn into the site.
Relocating the access to the proposed location to the west of the applicanrs current proposed location
will increase the merging distance from 160 feet to approximately 400 feet. This will reduce the
preject's impact on Highway 79(S)/Western Bypass Corridor. The project will be conditioned to modify
the project's access to a location 250 feet from the current proposed alignment. With the incorporation
of this condition is has been determined that after mitigation is incorporated this project will have a less
than significant impact.
17.c.
No Impact. This project and the future development of the site will not have environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The subdivision
is designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. If
approved, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
23
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
18.a.
18.b.
18.c.
An earlier Environmental Initial Study was conducted for this project and circulated on September 30,
1999. The proposed determination of this study was that an Environmental Impact Report would be
required for this project due to there being potentially significant impacts associated with the project.
The analysis in this study provides mitigation for these potentially significant impacts.
A number of studies that were conducted for a previous subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map 23987)
which included this property. These studies include: "A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites
Recorded on TPM 23987" prepared by The Archaeological Research Unit at UCR (Decamber 1988);
A Biological Assessment conducted by Tierra Madre Consultants (October 1988); A Stephens
Kangaroo Rat Study conducted by Fdesen Biological Surveys for TPM 19851 (undated); two
Geotechnical Investigations conducted by Schaefer Dixon Associates (April 1988 and February 1989).
· With the exception of the archeological study, none of these studies were used in this analysis due
to their age. Reference was only briefly made to this document. The City's General Plan and Final
Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study.
There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared has been prepared for this project and is attached
to this document.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
The City of Temecula Development Code.
Focused Traffic Analysis for TPM 28627 prepared by RKJK & Associated - May 1999 (with
subsequent amendments)
Biological Impact Report for TPM 28627 prepared by Pdncipe & Associates - December 1997
Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters for TPM 28627 prepared by LSA Associates -
October 1998
A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987 prepared by The Archaeological
Research Unit at UCR (December 1988)
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
24
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627)
Aesthetics
General Impact:
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings.
Mitigation Measure:
Preserve the entire six acres of Riparian Woodland and one half
acre of the one acre portion of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. For
the one half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that will be
developed, the project proponent will be required to purchase one
half acre of Rivereidian Sage Scrub off-site or a greater amount as
required by State and Federal wildlife agencies in compliance with
the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game's
Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) [based on
the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart contained in Attachment "A" of
the Biological Impact Report prepared for the project].
Specific Process:
Receive approval for the purchase of off-site property from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game. Submit a mitigation plan to the Planning
Department which details how the applicant has set aside
sensitive areas and has met the requirements of the U.S Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Dept. of Fish and Game for the
off-site purchase of off-site property to compensate for the taking
of any Riversidian Sage Scrub.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No.
655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits,
:Building and Safety Department.
for
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97,MMP.dcc
1
Bioloaical Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Endangered, threatened or ram species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephen's Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per gross acre to mitigate the regional impacts on
the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat caused by urbanization.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mitigation Measure:
Preserve the entire 6 acres of Ripadan Woodland on-site. Avoid
runoff contamination to Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, install
utility extensions underground, and revegetate all graded and
disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and plant
species.
Specific Process:
Development of the site shall preserve the entire 6 acres of
Riparian Woodlands on site. No grading or clearing shall occur in
this area. Development of the site shall be designed so that all
utility extensions are underground and that surface water run off
and spillage drains away from Murrieta and Temecula Creeks.
This area shall be fencad off prior to any grading activities to
prevent any disturbances to wetland or vegetation areas. The
project will be conditioned to revegetate all graded and disturbed
areas near the channels with native tree and plant species.
Prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance
to the mitigation measures contained in this document.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any site development
modification, which ever occurs first.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Mitigation Measure:
Requirement of biologic survey prior to the issuance of a grading
permit or at the time of the submittal of a development proposal
for the site (which ever occurs first).
Specific Process:
At the time of the submittal of a development proposal or the
submittal of a grading plan for the project site the applicant shall
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.doc
2
submit a biological survey at the appropriate time 0f the year to
determine if the California Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly or any other endangered or threatened species inhabit
the site. This biological survey shall propose appropriate
mitigation for development of the site. This biological survey shall
submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. Prepare a
Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance to the
mitigation measures contained in this document.
Mitigation Milestone:
Upon submittal of a development proposal or prior to the issuance
of a grading permit (which ever comes first).
Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department
General Impact:
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means
Mitigation Measure:
Preserve the entire amount of Riparian Woodlands habitat on site.
Mitigate for any lost jurisdictional wetlands under the terms of a
404 Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a 1601
Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game,
Specific Process:
Obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a
1601 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department
of Fish and Game. Prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure
project compliance to the mitigation measures contained in this
document.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
Cultural Resources
General Impact:
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique archeological resource or
site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure:
An earlier Archaeological Investigation conducted by the
Archaeological Research Unit at the University of California at
Riverside in December of 1986 identified a sensitive
archaeological area along Murrieta Creek which may extend into
the subject site. Due to the potential for deposits in the area and
at the recommendation of the UCR Eastern Information Center
(within correspondence dated October 13, 1997), future
development of the proposed site will be required to conduct a
Phase II archeological investigation on site prior to the approval
any development project.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP,doc
3
Specific Process:
When future development is proposed on the site a Phase II
archaeological study shall be conducted. This study shall
establish appropriate mitigation to address any significant impacts
that may occur.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the submittal of a
subsequent development application, which ever occurs first.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Public Works Department and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure:
The General Plan identifies that the area could potentially be
within a highly sensitive paleontological area. Due to the potential
for deposits in the area, future development of the proposed site
will be conditioned to have an on site-monitor during grading
operations. The potential for future significant impacts will be
determined and fully mitigated when future development
proposals are considered.
Specific Process:
Place a condition on this project that grading will cease if cultural
resources are encountered during grading.
Mitigation Milestone:
During grading operations.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Public Works Department and Planning Department.
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial
grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department,
General Impact: Expose people to risks to life or property due to expansive soils.
Mitigation Measure: Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the
Uniform Building Code.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.dOc
4
Specific Process: Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department
for approval.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit,
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
Hvdrologv
General Impact: The project will violate water quality or waste discharge
requirements
Mitigation Measure:
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
Specific Process:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
General Impact:
The project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site
Mitigation Measure:
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
Specific Process:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
General Impact:
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows,
Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall obtain a floodplain development permit to
ensure all finished floors are a minimum of one (1) foot above the
base flood elevation.
Specific Process: Submit a floodplain development permit to the Public Works
Department for approval.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97,MMP.dOC
5
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works.
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Mitigation Measure:
Payment of Development Impact Fee for mad improvements and
traffic impacts.
Specific Process:
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Increase in vehicle trips and traffic congestion whereby effecting
the Level of Service (LOS) for intersections in the vicinity and
increasing hazards associated with increased trips and traffic
congestion.
Mitigation Measure:
The project has been conditioned to relocate the site's access
approximately 250 feet to the west of the current proposed access
location, which effectively eliminates the extension of Old Town
Front Street to the south of Highway 79(S)/Westem Bypass
Corridor.
Specific Process:
Redesign the map with the access into the project shifted to a
location approximately 250 feet from the current proposed
alignment and receive the appropriate approvals from the Public
Works and Planning Departments.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to recordation of a final map.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEOA\307pa97.MMP,dOC
6
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department
Noise
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Expose people to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels.
Construction activity shall comply with City ordinances regulating
the hours of activity in residential areas.
City inspectors shall periodically monitor the construction site to
ensure compliance.
During active construction of the site.
Responsible Monitoring Parby:Building & Safety Department and Department of Public Works.
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public
facilities, including reads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements,
traffic impacts, and public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
F:\DEPTS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.dOc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8, 1999
VICINITY MAP
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pA97 .PC2.doc
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - HT (HIGHWAY/TOURIST COMMERCIAL)/
OS-C (CONSERVATION)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
CASE NO. - PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8, 1999
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.dcc
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
Planning Application No. PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment);
and Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract
Map 29286);
2. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No, PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
Planning Application No. PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment);
and Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract
Map 29286);
,, :;'~3. f//ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommendi, De--the-Gi.ty
.3) ~,o ~ approve Planning Application No. PA99-0244
' -:',.:" (C-~neral Pl~t) based upon the Analysis
.)_] ,,. ;" Findings contained in the Staff Report;
, 4. ~,'ADOP'['Resolutiofi,-No.-99- "'-~'ecorftmendi'ng the City
I,.,.
""., n~d in tR~
5. ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommendS'the Ci~
Council approve Planning Appli~tion No:' PA99-0243
(T~i~ Tract Map 29286) based upon the Analysis and
Findings containeB'rfi'~taff Repod, and subject to the
a~ached Conditions of Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Bill Storm, Lennar Communities
Planning Application No. PA99-0244 is a request for a General
Plan Amendment to remove the subject site from the Specific
Plan overlay designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
1
and revert back to the underlying Land Use Designation of
Low Medium (LM) Density Residential depicted on the
General Plan Land Use map;
Planning Application No, PA 99-0245 (Zoning Amendment)
to change the existing zoning map from Specific Plan
Overlay (SP) to Low Medium (LM) Density Residential which
is consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use
designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential.
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 is a request for a
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 9.75 acres of land into thirty
eight (38) single family residential lots.
LOCATION:
Located on the east of Margadta Road at the northem City limit
(Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003).
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
North: Single Family Residential (County of Riverside
Zoning)
South: SP (SweetWater Specific Plan)
East: Single Family Residential (County of Riverside
Zoning)
West: SP (SweetWater Specific Plan)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BACKGROUND
North: Vacant
South: Winchester Creek Park
East: Single Family Residential
West: Vacant
PAgg-0244 General Plan Amendment, Planning Application No. PA99-0245 Zoning Amendment
and Planning Application No. PA99-0243 for Tentative Tract Map No. 29286 were submitted on
June 22, 1999. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 15, 1999
which resulted with the Public Works and Fire Departments having issues relative to the number
and location of access points. Staff worked with the applicant to resolve the issues and bring the
project into compliance with the City standards. The applications were deemed complete on
November 9, 1999.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applications are to subdivide 9.75 acres into 38 single family residential lots with and a
corresponding General Plan Amendment to remove the subject site from the Specific Plan Overlay
designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan and revert back to the underlying Land Use
Designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential as depicted on the General Plan Land Use
map. The Zoning Amendment is to remove the subject site from the existing Specific Plan zoning
to be consistent with the existing Land Use Designation of LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
of the General Plan.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRFF\243pa99.pC.doc
2
ANALYSIS
General Plan Amendment (PA99-0244~
The applicant is requesting to remove the subject site from the proposed SweetWater Specific Plan
that is currently being reviewed by staff. This requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to
remove the site from the Specific Plan (SP) Oveday designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan
and revert the zoning back to the undedying Land Use Designation of Low Medium (LM) Density.
The map is being subdivided in conformance with the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential
standards and is below the General Plan and Development Code target density of 4.5 dwelling
units per acre, with a proposed density of 3.9 dwelling units per acre. The proposed GPA is a
procedural change to make Figure 2-5 of the General Plan consistent with the proposed Zoning
Amendment. No change in Land Use or density will occur as a result of this General Plan
Zonine Amendment (PA99-0245) '~;7~'~,. ~
The subje. ct site is being rem. oved from the e. xisting. SweetWater Specifi.c I~lan tha. t is curr;~l~¢',~
(LM) Density Residential. Both the applicant and staff agree that the subject parcel is not
appropriate to include in the Specific Plan because it is an isolated, in-fill parcel that does not have
a logical connection to the proposed Spedtic Plan. Therefore, staff supports excluding this site from
the SweetWater Specific Plan and reverting the zoning back to LM (Low Medium Density
Residential) to be consistent with the existing Land Use Designation of the General Plan.
PA 99-0243 Tentative Tract MaD (29286)
The tentative tract map proposes to subdivide 9.75 acres into 38 single family residential lots. The
proposed subdivision as ~lesigned is in co .nforman. ce w!th the General Plan and Development Code .4 :~
par~ls is 7,200 square feet. The proposed par~ls range in size from 6,334 square feet to 16,263 ~'
square feet, with an average net lot area of 8,765 square feet which ex~eds the minimum average
c~ss and Circulation %b ~
The proposed subdivision will have one point of access off Margarita Road that will be restricted "~ ~.
to right-in, right-out only. There will be no access from Date Street. As proposed, the subdivision ~o. '
consists of three cul-de-sacs off of the primary street that provides circulation throughout the
development.
· '~,:i~'
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have
a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of
Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
hereby adopted.
F:\D¢pCs\PLANNING\STAFFP, PT~243pa~)9.PC.dOC
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed map provides adequate access, circulation and developable lots. The proposed lots
comply with the minimum average net lot size requirements of the Low Medium Density Residential
zoning classification pursuant to Chapter 17, Table 17.06.040 of the Development Code. The
proposed General Plan Amendment is a procedural change to remove the subject site from the
Specific Plan Oveday designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan and revert back to the
underlying Land Use Designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed Zoning
Amendment is to change the existing zoning map from Specific Plan Oveday (SP) to Low Medium
(LM) Density Residential which is consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use
designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed subdivision is being
developed in compliance with the standards of the LM zoning classification.
FINDINGS
General Plan Amendments
The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The
proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation, density or
permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific
Plan Oveday zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of
Low Medium Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore. the
project will not have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The subdivision is
compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential homes
which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides
adequate access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing
circulation or emergency vehicle access, The project as conditioned, will comply with the
City's Development Code, General Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the
corresponding General Plan Amendment (PA9g-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-
0245)..
The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with
the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision and future
residential development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use
Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The project
is being developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and
Development Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed
density is below the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed
density of 3.9 du/ac. Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect on the
community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Zonina Amendment:
1. The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The
proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation, density or
permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2~5, Specific
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
4
Plan Overlay zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of
Low Medium Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the
project will not have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The subdivision is
compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential homes
which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides
adequate access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing
circulation or emergency vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the
City's Development Code, General Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the
corresponding General Plan Amendment (PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-
0245).,
The change will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the
goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, The proposed subdivision and future
residential development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use
Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification, The project
is being developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and
Development Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed
density is below the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed
density of 3.9 du/ac. Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect on the
community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Tentative Tract MaD 29286
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent
with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land
Use Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract
Map No. 29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum
average net lot size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per
acre.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered
into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will
not be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The subject site is not part of the
California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or any conservation contract. All proposed
parcels are for residential home sites and comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density
standards and requirements of the Development Code and General Plan.
The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed
by the tentative map. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map
No. 29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum
average net lot size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per
acre. The proposed subdivision is being developed below the General Plan and
Development Code target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre, with a density of 3.9
dwelling unit per acre. Thus, the subject site is suitable to accommodate the proposed
density.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTx243pa99.PC.doc
5
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval,
are either:
Not likely to cause s~gni~cant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlib or their habitat; or
An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and
the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be adopted.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision. The project proposes one street
access from Margarita Road that is restricted to right-in, right-out only. The project is
consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the
project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. Therefore,
cause serious public health problems are not likely to occur as a result of the proposed
subdivision.
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The future single family homes will
have roofs that can accommodate solar panels to permit future passive or natural heating
or cooling opportunities.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The project will take direct access
from Margarita Road and will not obstruct any easements.
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
The project is conditioned to satis~ the City's parkland dedication requirement through the
payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be
calculated by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current
appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\~;TAFFRFY\243pa99.pC.dOC
6
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 99- - (Planning Commission Recommendation of PA99-0244, General
Plan Amendment and PA99-0245, Zoning Amendment) - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - Draft City Council Resolution No. 99- (Approving PA99-0244, General
Plan Amendment) - Blue Page 13
Exhibit B - Draft City Council Ordinance No. 99- (Approving PA99-0245, Zoning
Amendment) - Blue Page 17
2. PC Resolution No. 99- - (Planning Commission Recommendation of PA99-0243, Tentative
Tract Map 29286) - Blue Page 20
Exhibit A--Draft City Council Resolution Approving PA99-0243 Blue Page 24
Exhibit A--Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 29
3, Exhibits - Blue Page 40
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Tentative Tract Map No. 29286
4. Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 44
5. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 45
R:~STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.dOC
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PA 99-0244 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
AND
PA 99-0245 (ZONING AMENDMENT)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRIrI'\243pa99.pC.dcc
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP (FIGURE 2-5) OF THE
GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0244)
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-640-003" AND
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM SP (SPECIFIC
PLAN) TO LOW MEDIUM (LM) DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(PLANNING APPLICATION PA 99-0245) ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 911-640-003".
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities submitted Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General
Plan Amendment) and PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment), in accordance with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) and PA99-
0245 (Zoning Amendment) 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. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) and PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment) on Decamber 8, 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 headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) and PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinqs.
A. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the General Plan
Amendment, make the following findings:
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.pC.doc
1. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation, density or
permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific Plan Oveday zone,
and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density
Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will not have an adverse
effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The
subdivision is compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential
homes which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate
access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency
vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General
Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the corresponding General Plan Amendment
(PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99o0245).
3. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision
and future residential development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and
Land Use Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The
project is being developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and
Development Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed density
is below the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed density of 3.9
du/ac. Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
B. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Zoning
Amendment, make the following findings:
1. The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation,
density or permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific Plan
Overlay zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of Low Medium
Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will not have
an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The
subdivision is compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential
homes which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate
access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency
vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General
Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the corresponding General Plan Amendment
(PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245).
3. The change will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision and
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
10
future residential development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use
Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The project is being
developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and Development Code
standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed density is below the target
density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed density of 3.9 du/ac. Therefore, the
amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the adopted General Plan.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for these projects which
indicates that although the proposed projects could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project.
Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted.
Section 4, The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0244 and PA99-0245 (General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Amendment) 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 Specific Plan Overlay Map of the General Plan for the property located
on the east side of Margarita Road at the northern City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel
Number 911-640-003" (Planning Application No. PA99-0244 and PA99-0245)" 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 to change the zoning from SP
(Specific Plan) to LM (Low Medium Density Residential) on the property located on the east side
of Margarita Road at the nodhem City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel No. Number 911-640-
003 (Planning Application No. PA99-0245)" substantially in the form that is attached to this
resolution as Exhibit B.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doC
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8~ day of December 1999.
Ron Guerriero, 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 8u' day of December,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFR.PTX243pa99.PC.doc
12
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
PA 99o0244 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
R:\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
13
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP
(FIGURE 2-5) OF THE GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0244) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN
CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
911-640-003
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities submitted Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General
Plan Amendment), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) 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. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) on December 8, 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 Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning
Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application
No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) on ,
persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or ol:;positio:t which time interested
to Planning Application
No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
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. Findinqs The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) hereby makes the following findings:
A. The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation,
density or permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific Plan
Overlay zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of Low Medium
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.pC.doc
Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will not have
an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
B. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The
subdivision is compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential
homes which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate
access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency
vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General
Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the corresponding General Plan Amendment
(PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245)..
C. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The amendment will not have
an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted
General Plan. The proposed subdivision and future residential development is a permitted use in
the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential zoning classification. The project is being developed in conformance with the General
Plan Land Use Designation and Development Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential. The proposed density is below the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)
with a proposed density of 3.9 du/ac. Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect
on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Section 3. Amendment To The Specific Plan Overlay MaD of the General Plan. The City
Council hereby amends Figure 2-5, the Specific Plan Overlay Map, of the General Plan on the
following parcel in the manner specified below:
A. For the parcel identified as APN 911-640-003: On Figure 2-5 of the Specific Plan
Overlay Map, change the Land Use Designation from Specific Plan (SP) to the underlying zoning
classification of Low Medium Density Residential (LM) of the Land Use Map of the General Plan
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for the project which
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures descdbed in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project.
Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted.
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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.doc
15
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
CityClerk
F:\Dep~\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.doc
16
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 99-
PA 99-0245 (ZONING AMENDMENT)
R:\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 99-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE
ZONING FROM SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) TO LOW MEDIUM (LM)
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY
LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-
640-003 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA 99-0245)".
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 district
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 PA99-0245 (Zoning
Amendment) and listed below:
A. For the parcel identified as APN 911-640-003: change the Zoning Designation from
Specific Plan (SP) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM) consistent with General Plan Land Use
Designation of Low Medium Density Residential (LM);
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. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a
summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted
in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15
days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance,
together with the names of the Coundlmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the
same in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for the project which
indicates that although the proposed projects could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project.
Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.pC.doc
18
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of ....
ATTEST:
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Califomia, 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 , 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 __ by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
CityClerk
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.doc
19
A'I'FACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
PA99-0243 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29286)
R:\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.doC
20
ATTACHMENT No. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0243 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.75
ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-640-003.
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities filed Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 29286) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by
reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0243
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29386) on December 8, 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 considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA99-0243
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29286);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286), hereby makes the following findings
as required in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460.
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre.
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be
too small to sustain their agricultural use. The subject site is not part of the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 or any conservation contract. All proposed parcels are for residential
R:\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.doC
21
home sites and comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density standards and requirements of the
Development Code and General Plan.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No,
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre. The proposed
subdivision is being developed below the General Plan and Development Code target density of
4.5 dwelling units per acre, with a density of 3.9 dwelling unit per acre. Thus, the subject site is
suitable to accommodate the proposed density.
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions
of approval, are either:
a. Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; or
b. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the
Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be adopted.
E. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely
to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformanca with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision. The project proposes one street access
from Margadta Road that is restricted to right-in, right-out only. The project is consistent with these
documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that
the development conforms to City Standards. Therefore, cause sedous public health problems are
not likely to occur as a result of the proposed subdivision.
F The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The future single family homes will
have roofs that can accommodate solar panels to permit future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities.
G, The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent
to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The project will take direct access from
Margarita Road and will not obstruct any easements.
H, The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
(Quimby). The project is conditioned to satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through
the payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be
calculated by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current appraised land
valuation as established by the City Manager.
F:\Dept~\PLANNING\STAFFRFFX243pa99.PC.doc
22
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures descdbed in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby adopted.
Section 4. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) 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 approving Planning Application PA99-0243 for Tentative Tract No. 29286 for the
sbudivision of 9.75 acres into 38 residential lots for the property located on the east side of
Margadta Road at the nodhem City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003"
substantially in the form that is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A;
Section 5 Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission conditionally
hereby approves Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) for the
subdivision of a 9.75 acres into 38 residential parcels located on the east side of Margarita Road
at the northern City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003, subject to the project
specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference, for the property.
Section 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8thday of December, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, 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 8"~ day of December,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\Dcpts\pLANNING\STAFFIL~T~243pa99.PC.doc
23
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING PA99-0243
R:\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.doc
24
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0243 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.75
ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 911-640-003.
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities filed Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 29286) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by
reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) 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. PA99-0243
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) on December 8, 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 Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning
Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286);
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 29286) on , , 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, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinos. That the Temecula City Council, in approving Planning Application
No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286), hereby makes the following findings as required
in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460.
R:\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.doc
25
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standar{~s of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre.
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be
too small to sustain their agricultural use. The subject site is not part of the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 or any conservation contract. All proposed parcels are for residential
home sites and comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density standards and requirements of the
Development Code and General Plan.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre. The proposed
subdivision is being developed below the General Plan and Development Code target density of
4.5 dwelling units per acre, with a density of 3.9 dwelling unit per acre. Thus, the subject site is
suitable to accommodate the proposed density.
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are either:
a. Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; or
b. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the
Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be adopted.
E. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely
to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision. The project proposes one street access
from Margadta Road that is restricted to right-in, right-out only. The project is consistent with these
documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that
the development conforms to City Standards. Therefore, cause serious public health problems are
not likely to occur as a result of the proposed subdivision.
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The future single family homes will
have roofs that can accommodate solar panels to permit future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRFr\243pa99.PC,doc
26
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision, or the design of the altemate easements which are substantially equivalent
to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The project will take direct access from
Margarita Road and will not obstruct any easements.
H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
(Quimby). The project is conditioned to satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through
the payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be
calculated by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current appraised land
valuation as established by the City Manager.
Section 3. Environmental Coml~liance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally
approves Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) for the subdivision
of a 9.75 acres into 38 residential parcels located on the east side of Margadta Road at the northem
City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003, subject to the project specific
conditions set fodh on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference,
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.doc
27
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Califomia, 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 , and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passedit a regular meetin6 of the City Council of the City of
Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~.43pa99.PC.dOc
28
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:XDepB\pLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.doc
29
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286)
Project Description:
Planning Application No. PA 99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map
29286) for the subdivision of 9.75 acres of land into thirty
eight (38) residential lots zoned Low Medium Density
Residential.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
911-640-003
December 8, 1999
December 8, 2001
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicantJdeveloper shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division a cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount
of One Thousand Throe Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One
Thousand Two Hundrod and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee. to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicantJdeveloper has not delivered to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall
be void by reason of failuro of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written roquest, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality theroof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees.
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgemerits, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, diroctly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner
of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99,PC .doc
30
defense.
The Tentative Tract Map (29286) shall not be approved until the General Plan Amendment
(PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245) are approved.
If subdivision phasing is proposed, a Dhasina plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director.
The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures contained in the projects Mitigation Monitoring Program.
After grading all slopes shall be planted in accordance with the City's Slope Planting
Guidelines. Jute netting will be required on all slopes greater than ten linear feet.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
10. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
a. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All
proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
11. The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no
cost to any Government Agency.
General Requirements
12.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
13.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works pdor to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
14.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
15.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars,
F:\Depls\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~43pa99.PC.doc
31
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
16.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Rancho California Water District
c. Eastern Municipal Water District
d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
f. Planning Department
g. Department of Public Works
h. Riverside County Health Department
i. Cable TV Franchise
j. Community Services District
k. General Telephone
I. Southern California Edison Company
m. Southern California Gas Company
n. Fish & Game
o. Army Corps of Engineers
17,
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Public Works:
Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standard No. 100 - 110' R/W) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, 6 feet wide sidewalk within a 12 feet wide
parkway, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer), 14 feet wide raised landscaped median and a 14 feet wide
lane west side of the median. The Developer can receive Development Impact Fee
credits for half of the raised landscaped median.
Improve Date Street (Major Highway Standard No. 101-100' R/W) to include dedication
of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, 6 feet wide sidewalk within a 10 feet wide parkway, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer). The Developer shall deposit $40.00/LF. with the City for future construction of
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~43pa99.pC.doc
32
half width of the 14 feet wide raised landscaped median.
Improve Streets "A", "B", "C" and "D" (Local Road Standard No. 104 - 60' RA/V) to
include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
d. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
18.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum cdteda shall be observed in the design
of the street improvement plans:
a. Street centedine grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to City Standard Nos. 207 and 208.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance
with Ordinance No. 461.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400,
401 and 402.
e. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties.
f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate
right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
i. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
19.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
20.
Relinquish and waive dght of access to and from Date Street and Margarita Road on the
Final Map with the exception of Street "A" opening as delineated on the approved
Tentative Tract Map.
21.
Vehicular movement to and from Street "A" shall be restricted to right in/right out,
respectively.
22.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
F:\Dep~s\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~43pa99.PC.doc
33
23.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons
such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
24.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment Distdct must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to
City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
25. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
26.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A
copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department and Public Works
Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
d. Archeological resources found on the site.
27.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any undedying maps related to the subject
property.
28.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
29.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV,
and/or secudty systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
30.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
31.
Pdvate drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the Final Map.
32. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Final Map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
F:\DcpL~\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~43pa99.pC.doc
34
outside of mad right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on
the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be
kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
33.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
wdtten clearance from the following agencies:
a, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Riverside County Health Department
f. Community Services District
g. General Telephone
h. Southern California Edison Company
i. Southern California Gas Company
j. Fish & Game
k. Army Corps of Engineers
34.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion,
35.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
36.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
37.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
38. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
F:\l)eptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.dOC
35
39. All lot drainage shall be diracted to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent
of any other lot.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
40. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
41.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location
and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
42.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
43.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
44.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
45,
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
46,
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
47.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operations of this project shall be rapaired or removed and replaced to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
48.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are
in force at the time of building plan submittal.
49.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land
division per CFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.pC.doC
36
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
56.
project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted dudng the approval
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection
measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the
street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall
be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire
hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be thirty-eight (38) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed, Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs, GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2,2)
Pdor to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet,
( CFC sec 902)
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Pdor to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901,4.3)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.doc
37
59.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General ReQuirements:
60.
A Class II Bicycle Lane on Margadta Road and Date Street shall be identified on the street
improvement plans and constructed in concurrence with the completion of said street
improvements.
61.
The developer, or his assignee, shall be responsible for the parkway landscaping adjacent
to Margarita Road and Date Street and the raised landscape medians until such time as
those responsibilities are approved and accepted by the TCSD.
62.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes, drainage structures and entry monumentation shall be
constructed outside of the proposed TCSD maintenance area and maintained by the
property owner or and established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
63.
Construction of the parkway landscaping on Margarita Road and Date Street and the
landscaped medians shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the
developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude the acceptance of this area into the TCSD
maintenance program.
64.
Grading improvements that encroach upon the adjacent Winchester Hills Park shall require
a City Council approved grading agreement. The developer shall provide construction
plans and post securities to guarantee the park is repaired to City standards.
Prior to ADDroVal of the Final MaD:
65.
The developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment
of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be
calculated by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current
appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager.
66.
Landscape construction drawings for the perimeter parkway landscaping and the raised
landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
67.
The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway
landscaping and raised landscape medians.
68.
The proposed landscaped parkway adjacent to Margarita Road and Date Street (Lot Nos.
I and 25-38) shall be identified as a TCSD maintenance area and offered for dedication on
the final map.
69.
The developer shall file a notice of intention with the TCSD to initiate election proceedings
for acceptance of residential street lighting and slope maintenance responsibilities into the
respective TCSD maintenance programs. All costs associated with this process shall be
borne by the developer.
Prior to Issuance of Bulldine Permits:
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.doc
38
70.
Pdor to issuance of building permits or installation of the street lights, whichever comes first,
the developer shall pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street
lights into the TCSD maintenance program.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
71.
It shall be the developers responsibility to provide wdtten disclosure of the existence of the
TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
OTHER AGENCIES
72. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Distdct's transmittal dated July 12, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information
Centers transmittal dated July 12, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside,
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 12, 1999, a copy of which is
attached,
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdcrs transmittal dated July 29, 1999, a copy of
which is attached.
75.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.d~c
39
Kan
Ralph H. Daily
Doug Kulberg
Jeffre~ L, Minlder
John F. Hennigar
July 12, 1999
Patty Anders, Case Planner
City of Ternecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT NO. 29286
APN 911-640-003
PLANNING APPLICATIONS NO. PA99-0243, NO. 99-0244,
AND NO. PA99-0245
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
99~B:mc175~FO12-T1LFCF
c: Laude Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
: JUL ] 4 7999 ',':'.'!
.........
iMonday Jury 12, 1999 9:47am -- From ,90978~. ' -- Page 2I
SENT UY:UCR . ?-12-99 ;IO:2gAR; ARCH RESEARCH .IT~ 90969464??;# 2
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
RW~,~I3)e
item Information Center
Oepertment of AnffirOpology
University of Califomie
Riverside, CA 92521-04:18
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE:
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California ZJiistorlcal Reeourcee Information System have
been rt:viewed to determine if this project would ndvea'sely effect prehistoric or histori; cultural resourcea:
Thc propoecd project uc, h,, n~ beg~ .urveyed br ~ moume and ~oateie or i, V_j-___-.r~_ Io known cutrural
rc.ouroe(,). A ~ I study b rccommc__..~__.
__ Ihsed upon existing dm the pml~sed pmjeot a~ ~ ~ ~il for ~i ~1 mou~. A ~ l ~dy
__ A Phu= I cukurtl reaouree study {MF #
· ) idm~f-,a me or mo~ cu~n.r~l
~ Tlscrc is a low pxobeb~ty of ¢uRulll rclotu'ccl,. Furriser Iludy ia no¢ recemmemdcd.
__ Due m the ereh&eologie. I sensitivity of Ihe ate., sethmovlng du ring eonltruotion should be monhomd by · peofensional
uchaeotog~.
Ptmsel
Phase I1
PImse I11
Pitase IV
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
mc'vM~
IMonday JuLy 12, 1999 9:47am -- From s909787~, -- Psge ]~
SENT BY:UG~ . 7-12-gg :IE:3OAM; ARGH RESEARGH .iT~ gOgEg16477;# 3
~) D~e~elop City of Temecula JUl. 0 ~ 1929
!
meat R ct ~ansmi~ '
Case Name:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Lo~tion:
Intended
Envirormaental Action:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Case Planner:
Status:
Comments:
The attached project has been scheduled for a Developmext Review Committee meeting on
Thursday, July 15, 1999,'
Your written comments are requested. Oux mail 'IX addr~s.s is: City of Temecula Planning
ri .
shou~a you have any questions regarding this project{ please contact the case planner at (909) 694-
Project Information; Winchester Hills a.,ennar qomes
Case Number: PA99-0243 (Tentati,~e Tract Map 29286), PA99-0244 (GPA) and
PA99-024S Zone Change
Winche$t~ l~ilk Tentative Tract 1Vatp 29286
Lennar Homes / Mr. 3ffi Storm
Subdivision of 9.75 acres into 40 single family residential lots and
two open space lots (PA99-0243). A General plan Amendment to
change the current land use classification of "S" (Specific Plan) to
LM (Low Medium Denally Residential) and a zone change to
change the zoning cla.~affication fzom 'SP" (Specific Plan) to LM
(Low Medium DeasiD- Residential).
Southeast corner of Margarita Road and Date Street
Negative Declaxation
911-640-(X)3 (Formerl~ 911-640-002)
X .
Re-submittal: PreviouS DRC Date:
:twater Specific Plan (previously known as
This is not part of the proposed Swe
WinchesterHills Specific Plan).
~XTiiMEC_pS201~.DATAXDBPTSXPLANNINGXPLANNI~GX243pa~gDR. C T~,do~
2
IHonday JuLy 12, 1~ 3:02pm -- Fro8 '~558~3,
87/12/19~J 14:42 9558983
TO:
FROM:
County of Riverside
P~E
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL'!H'
ATE: tsmumy 12
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. PA99-0245 ( l~f~nce: TTR 29286, GPA PA99-0244)
1. The Department Of Environmenlal Health has ~riewed this Challge of Zone No. PA99-0245 and has
no objections.
2. Sanitary sewer and water services should be available in this are&
03/84
1999
CH:dr
(909) 955-8980
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD C.D1NTFROL__
AND WATER CONSERVATION
City of Temecula
Plannin De rtment
Post o}Wce 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: Patty Andera
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
__.._,.RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788,9965 FAX
58234.1
Re: Tentative Tract Map 29286 (PA 99-0243)
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The Distdct also does not plan check c land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters
or other flood hazard re orts for such cases. ~istdct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally
f gr":.%. '.o &%,%".,%%%'o
plan system, and Distd~lArea Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a
generm nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed pro'ect in detail and the following checked comments do not in an
way COnstitute or im I Distdct a proval or en~Jorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazar~y,
public health and sa~y or any ot~er such issue:
This project would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional interest proposed.
This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will aCCe t ownership of such facilities
on wi'itten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distd~ostandards, and Distdct plan
check and inspection will be required for Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and
administrative fees will be required.
X This project ma involve draina · facilities that may be COnsidered a logical extension of the Distdct's
' Margadta Roa~Storm Drain. ~'~e District would consider acceptin ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the C ty Fact es must be constructed to Distnct ~gt~ndards and Distdct lan check
and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and adminis~t ve fees
will be required.
X Ths project is located within the limits of the Districrs Mumeta Creek/Santa Margadta Valley Area
' Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have beer, adopted; a pliceble fees should be paid by cashier's
check or money order onl to tffie Flood Control Distdct dor ~ issuance of building or grading permits,
whichever comes first. ~Yees to be paid should be at t~e rate in effect at the time of ~ssuance of the
actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This pro'ect may require a Nationa Po utant Dischar · Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State
Water ~Lesources Contro Board. Clearance for ra~n~g. recordation or other final ap roval should ot be
given until the City has determined that the project gnas been granted a permit or is shown ~ be exempt. n
If ths roject nvolves a Federal Emergency Management Agenc (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City
shou dP~equ re the applicant to rov de a stud es calculations gYans and other information re uired to meet
FEMA requ rements, and shouloPfurther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter o~ql~ap Revision
CLOMR) prior to grading. recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision
ILOMR) pnor to occupancy.
f a natura watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the applicant
to obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the ~aa fomia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water
Act Section 404 Permit from the g~.S. Army Corps of Engineers or written correspondence from these agencies
nd cat n the pro'ect is exempt from these re uirements. ~ Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality
Certi~ca~on ma ~;e required from the local Cali?oLmia Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance
of the Corps 40~' permit.
Very truly yours.
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: July 29, 1999
SKM:slj
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
F:\Depts\pLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
40
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. o Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286),
PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment), PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 8, 1999
VICINITY MAP
F:\Depts\PLANN1NGx, STAFFRPT~43pa99.PC.doC
CITY OF TEMECULA
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286 '~/,~
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286)
EXHIBIT D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 8, 1999
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.pC.doc
42
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
EXHIBIT C - SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP (FIGURE 2-5) OF THE GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - SP (SPECIFIC PLAN)
CASE NO. - PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map 29286)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 8, 1999
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC .doc
43
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
F:\Dept~\PLANNING\STAFFRFr\243pa99.PC.doC
44
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Tentative Tract Map No. 29286 (Planning Application No. PA99-
0243); General Plan Amendment (Planning Application No. PA99-
0244); and Zoning Amendment (Planning Application No. PA99-
0245)
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
City of Temecula
P.O, Box 9033,
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
(909) 694-6400
Located on the east side of Margadta Road at the northern City limit,
approximately 880' north of the intersection of Margarita Road and
Rustic Glen. (Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003)
Bill Storm, Lennar Homes, 24800 Chrisanta Drive, Mission Viejo, CA
92691
Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
Zoning
Specific Plan Overlay (SP)
Description of Project
PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) is a request to subdivide
9.75 acres into 38 single family residential lots and two open space lots
that comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning
classification (3-6 dwelling units per acre);
PA 99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) to remove the subject site from
the Specific Plan oveday designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan
and revert back to the underlying Land Use Designation of Low Medium
(LM) Density Residential depicted on the General Plan Land Use map;
PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment) to change the existing zoning map
from Specific Plan Oveday (SP) to Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential which is consistent with the underlying General Plan Land
Use designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
These three applications shall constitute the "project" as used in the
comment portions of the Environmental Checklist.
North: Neighborhood Commercial (Vacant)
East: SweetWater Specific Plan (Vacant)
South: Medium Density Resident (Existing Community Park)
West: Low Medium Density Resident (Existing Single Family)
Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Police Department,
Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District,
Riverside County Flood Control, Southern California Edison,
Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone
\\TEM EC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES .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 the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially impacts(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed name
F:\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
2
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Issues and Suppor~infl Information Sources
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
1.a.
The project will not disrupt of divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The
project site is vacant and surrounded by vacant land and existing single family homes. The
development of this site will be consistent with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
1,b.
The project will not conflict with applicable General Plan designation, environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The tentative tract map is being developed in
compliance with the City's General Plan Land Use designation of LM (Low Medium Density Residential
3-6 du/acre). The proposed General Plan Amendment is a procedural change to remove the subject
site from a Specific Plan overlay designation (Figure 2-5) of the General Plan whereas the land use
designation remains unchanged. The Zoning Amendment is also a procedural change to amend the
existing zoning map for the subject site from Specific Plan Overlay (SP) to Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential. The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent will the underlying Land Use Designation
of the General Plan. The subject site was originally anticipated to be included as part of a Specific
Plan; however, the site is separated by a General Plan Circulation Element Road and is not a logical
connection of the Specific Plan Area to the west. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to develop this
area separately in compliance with the existing land use designation and density of 3-6 dwelling units
per acre.
Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the
analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation
measures approved with the EIP, will be applied to this project where necessary. 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 policies. The project site has been not been previously graded;
however, services are available into the area. Therefore no impacts on adopted environmental plans or
policies are anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. This site is not within any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101%VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
3
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
b=
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
impact
Comments:
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is
consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed Zoning Amendment will
be consistent with the Land Use Designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed
subdivision will result in the development of new single family homes, which will cause some people to
relocate to, or within Temecula. However, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth
beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of
this project.
2,b, c.
The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is vacant
property zoned Low Medium Density Residential. Therefore, the project will not displace existing
housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
4
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the dsk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Potentially
Potentially Segnificant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact IncorDoratecl Impact
No
Impact
i)
iv) Landslides? ,/'
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ./'
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
d. .f
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1998), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
. water?
Comments:
3.a.i. There are no known or identified earthquake faults as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.a.ii, iii, b., and d,
There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, soil erosion
or expansive soils. Although, there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is
located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active. Any potential significant impacts will
be mitigated through grading and building construction, which is consistent with the Uniform Building
Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and
recommendations contained in this report are followed during construction. The soil reports will also
contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially
significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and
expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
3.a. iv, c.
The City's General Plan does not identify the subject site as being within an area of subsidence,
landslides or liquefaction hazards. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEM EC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES .doc
5
3.e.
Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project as sewers are available for the
disposal of waste water. The project will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
j,
Issues and Supporting Inforrnation Sources
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a Iowedng of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
4.a.
The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The
subdivision, and subsequent residential development, will be required to comply with the requirements
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been
filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential
impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
6
4.b.,f.
4.c,d.
4.e.
4.j.
The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the
site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or dver, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the
rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable
ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings,
accompanying hard scape and driveways, While absorption rates and surface runoff will change,
potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the
project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the future single family residential
development, the project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff, The project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the subject
site. In addition, the project will be conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding
properties. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding
because the project site is located outside of the 100 year floodway and the dam inundation area as
identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events are not
known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
ImDact
\%TEMEC_FS101 ~VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
7
Comments;
5.a-c.
The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution
standards. The project proposes to subdivide a 9.75 acres into 38 residentially zoned lots and two
open space lots. The subdivision, and future development, are anticipated to be within the number of
dwelling units threshold for potentially significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District of 166 units as depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. The future
development of the project for single family homes will create pollutants during the grading and
construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small quantities of construction
equipment poilutants. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The
future residents are not anticipated to generate significant pollutants, but that typical of a residential
tract development. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant as a result of this project.
5.e.
The project may create objectionable odors during the grading and construction of single family home,
however, these impacts are anticipated to be of short duration and will have less than a significant
impact.
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
b=
C=
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
6.a, b. There will be an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed subdivision is
developed. Due to the number of lots the vehicle trip count per, the City's Traffic Engineer and the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates the total vehicle trips per day for approximately 38
single-family residences would be approximately 380 daily trips. The project will be condition to width
both Margarita Road and Date Street to the ultimate General Plan road way width to help mitigate the
incremental impacts of the subject site. The City's Traffic Engineer indicated that the future single
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES,doc
8
6.c
6,d
6.e
6.f
6.g
family development will have a less than significant impact to the existing road system due to the
additional road widening and the maximum capacity of the existing road system. No further traffic
studies were required for this project. The development of tract will be required to contribute traffic
signal and public facility development impact fees prior to the issuance of any building permits. Less
than significant impacts are anticipated.
The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase ~n traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The site is not located within the French
Valley Airport influenced area pursuant to the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
December 1996. Therefore no significant impacts are anticipated.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current
City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The
project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does
not interfere with access to nearby uses but will help accommodate emergency access with the
widening of Margarita Road. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed project is for the subdivision of land; therefore no parking is required. Subsequent
development of the proposed parcels will be required to comply with the City's Development Code
parking requirements for the residential use. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project,
The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The project was reviewed by Riverside Transit
Agency (RTA). RTA concluded that the project is not near existing or planned RTA bus routes and will
not impact RTA services at this time. In addition, the project will be conditioned to install Class II bike
lanes along Margarita Road and Date Street to encourage alternative transportation. Therefore no
impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive. or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
%%TEM EC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA%243paS8 new IES .doc
9
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved Iocei, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
Pursuant to a biological assessment and jurisdictional determination dated June 29, 1999, the
subject site will not have a substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modifications on
candidate, sensitive or special species. The assessment concluded that the proposed project will not
have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game, or the US Fish
and Wildlife Service. Moreover, the biologicel assessment concluded that there are no federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act that will be adversely effected by
the proposed project. The site has been historically disturbed by farming, grazing and discing, and
there are no sensitive biological resources or significant waters that will be affected by the proposed
project.
7. d.
The biological assessment of the site dated June 29, 1999 states that the proposed project will not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites. On February 19, 1999, a focused habitat survey for the federally listed endangered
Quino chekerspot butterfly (QCB) was conducted in accordance with the Service's 1999 protocol. The
survey resulted with no QCB observed on the subject site
The subject site does have important raptor foraging habitat due to the high abundance of prey species.
However, there were few roosting sites available because of the total lack fo large trees. Because
foraging habitat for raptor species is not regionally unique, the loss of this resource would not be
significant (biological assessment dated June 29, 1999.
The biological survey concludes that the project site provides habitat for several wildlife species,
however, none of these are rare or endangered. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the
City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on
site, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.f. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Although the biological
assessment concludes that the Stephens Kangaroo Rat is not likely to occur onsite, the project will be
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat
Conservation) which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee, No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues end Supporting Information Sources
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
impact incorporated Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
8.a,b. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources nor in the loss of an
available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City
of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the
potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these
areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon available
data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
%\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
11
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
impact
working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a pdvate airstdp, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
9.a.
Because the property and the surrounding area will be used for single family homes and not a
commercial or industrial use, this project is not likely to create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Residential
development and habitation does not typically result in the routine transportation, use or disposal of
hazardous materials. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.b.
The ultimate development of this site will be single family homes. As such it is reasonably expected that
residents will not will not store or house large quantities of hazardous material that would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.c.
The ultimate use of this project site will be single family homes. This site is within approximately one-
quarter mile of a proposed school and one-half mile from an existing high school, The operation of
construction equipment and machinery during the development of this site will emit some hazardous
emissions and or handle some hazardous material. However, these emissions and materials should be
of limited quantities over a short duration of time. Moreover, the construction operations or handling of
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste, are regulated by the Department of
Environmental Health and Occupational Safety and Health Agencies (OSHA). Because the potential
use, emission and operations of hazardous material or acutely hazardous materials, substances or
waste is minimal, of a short duration, and is regulated by the proper environmental authorities, less than
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
This project site is not, nor is it located near a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 66962.5 that would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.e, f.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, but is located within approximately two
miles of a public or private airstrip. Given the fact that the project is being developed in compliance
with the General Plan Land Use Designation, and all impacts were analyzed in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, no significant impacts upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
9.g. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede emergency
response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.h. This project site in an area surrounded by vacant land existing single family homes; however the
subject site is not adjacent to any wildlands. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES,doc
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Comments:
lO.a.
This project site is designated for the development of single family homes, The site is currently vacant
and development of the land iogicelly will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases
as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, long-term noise generated by this
project would be within the limits of the General Plan standards for residential development. Less than
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
lO.b.
This project site is designated for the development of single family homes. There will be no activities
on this site that would exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
10.c.
The project will ultimately result in the development of 38 single family homes and two open space lots
which will create some noise levels over that currently emanating from the vacant land. However,
those noises will not be substantial nor permanent and are not anticipated to create a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project. Therefore, only less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
lO.d.
The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction.
Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is
considered very annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of
short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will
comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in residential areas. No significant impacts
are anticipated.
lO.e.f. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, but is located within approximately two
miles of a public or private airstrip. Given the fact that the project is being developed in compliance
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES,doc
with the General Plan Land Use Designation, and all impacts were analyzed in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, no significant impacts upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
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:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
Fire protection?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Comments:
11 .a., b., c., e. and f.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire,
police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some
services such as parks, schools, police and fire protection. Hever, the project will contribute its fair
share through the City's Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from
these entities. Due to its small scale, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school
facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The
cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable School Fees.
Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
14
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ,/
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No
Impact
Comments:
12.a., b. and e.
The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new
treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental
effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's
General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact
wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public
Works. No significant impacts are anticipated.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The development of the
tract will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will
connect to the existing system currently in place located within Margarita Road at the southwest corner
of the site. The design of the existing system is sufficient to handle this project and will not require the
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Drainage fees are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to
reimburse the county for the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
12.d. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements.
The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's
\\TEMEC_FS101%VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
12.f,g.
General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is
required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is
consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste
created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling
Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than a significant impact is anticipated as a result
of this project.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
NO
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic
building within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where
there is a scenic vista. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b-c. The project site has no unique physical attributes, therefore the future development will not
substantially degrade any scenic resources, or alter the visual character. When the residential
structures are built, the design of the homes will be reviewed by the Planning Department to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding area and a high quality architectural design. Therefore, no impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and
result in light and glare with the installation of new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to
impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The future development of the project site will be conditioned
to comply with Ordinance No. 655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution. After mitigation is performed,
less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES,doc
14, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Sign;tic, ant
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
14 a. thru d.
The site is not located in an area that has high archaelogical sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan
(Source 1, Figure, 5-6). Figure 5-7 of the General Plan indicates that the subject site is located within
an area of potential paleontological sensitivity. The Eastern Information Center of the University of
California at Riverside (UCR) has reviewed the project and has determined that a Phase I cultural
resource study identified no cultural resources. UCR recommends that if, during construction, cultural
resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified
archaeologist evaluated the finds and makes recommendations, Therefore, with appropriate mitigation
measures placed on the project and review of UCR, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a
result of this project.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b, Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No
Impad
Comments:
15.a,b. The project will have an impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational
facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. However, the project will be conditioned to pay in-
lieu (Quimby) fees, which will be used for park land acquisition of future park land and/or improvements
of existing parks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
17
16. Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
Issues and Suppo~ng Infomqation Sources
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Pregrem of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of farm land, to non-agricultural use?
Potentially
Potentiafiy Significant Unless Less Than
Signiticant Mitigation Significant No
Impac~ Incoq3orated Impact Impact
Comments:
16a,c. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and is not considered prime or unique of
Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency. Figure 5-4 of the General Plan indicates that the subject site is farmland
of local importance; however, the site is zoned Low Medium Density Residential with existing
development or planned development around the entire site. Moreover, the site is not currently in
agricultural production. The subject site is not considered valuable farmland or the conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural use. There are no impacts related to this issue.
16b.
The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula (Source 1,
Figure 5-5), and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there are no
impacts related to this issue.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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 of
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that 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?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
PotentiBlly
Significant
Impact
Significant
Unless Mitigation
~ncorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
Comments:
17.a.
This site has not been previously graded and is completely surrounded by residential development and
does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is an in-fill development and it does
not 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 of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory. Therefore less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17.b.
The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is being
development in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. All
cumulative effects for the residential land use of the subject site as well as the surrounding
developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the projects
consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the
development of the 38 residential lots will not have a significant impact,
17.c.
The tract map and the future development of single family homes will not have environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The subdivision is
designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. ~ Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
\\TEMEC+FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES,doc
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
18.a. No earlier analyses specifically related to this project site were used. The City's General Plan and Final
Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study
18.b. There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached.
SOURCES
(Available in the Temecula Planning Department)
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Qualify Management District CEQA Air Qualify Handbook.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
20
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
F:\DeptSXpLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
45
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29286; Planning
Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) and Planning Application No.
PA99-0245 (Zone Change)
GeoloGic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial
grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer,
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial
grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Expose people to risks to life or property due to expansive soils.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the
Uniform Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department
for approval,
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA~243pa98 M.M. Pgm,,doc
1
Wa~r
General Impact:
The project will violate water quality or waste discharge
requirements
Mitigation Measure:
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
Specific Process:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval,
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
General Impact:
The project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site
Mitigation Measure:
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
Specific Process:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval,
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
TransDortationlCirculation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and
traffic impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA~243pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
2
General Impact: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Mitigation Measure:
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation,
Specific Process:
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Mitigation Measure:
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat,
Specific Process:
Pay $250. per unit of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat
habitat,
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mitigation Measure:
Comply with the conditions of approval and mitigation measure for
the 1603 permit (Notification No. 6-027-99) issued by the
California Department of Fish and Game on March 11, 1999.
Specific Process:
Submit evidence of compliance with the approved conceptual
implementation plan per the approved 1603 permit with the
mitigation ratio of 3 to 1.
Mitigation Milestone:
Create mitigation monitoring area for five (5) years for successful
restoration area (timing established by the California Department
of Fish and Game 1603 permit).
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA~43pa98 M,M. Pgm..doc
3
General Impact:
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means
Mitigation Measure:
Comply with the conditions of approval for the 404 permit (Permit
No. 980032500-SDM) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife on
June 30, 1999.
Specific Process:
Submit evidence of compliance with the approved conceptual
implementation plan per the approved 1603 permit as the 404
permit does not require an implementation plan with the mitigation
ratio of 3 to 1.
Mitigation Milestone:
Create mitigation monitoring area for five (5) years for successful
restoration area (timing established by the California Department
of Fish and Game 1603 permit).
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
Noise
General Impact:
Expose people to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels.
Mitigation Measure:
Construction activity shall comply with City ordinances regulating
the hours of activity in residential areas.
Specific Process:
City inspectors shall periodically monitor the construction site to
ensure compliance.
Mitigation Milestone:
During active construction of the site.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building & Safety Department and Department of Public Works.
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA~43pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
4
General Impact: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public
facilities, including roads.
Mitigation Measure:
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements,
traffic impacts, and public facilities.
Specific Process:
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
Aesthetics
General Impact:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and
glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Mitigation Measure:
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No.
655.
Specific Process:
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building & Safety Department.
Cultural Resources
General Impact:
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure:
The project was reviewed by the Eastern Information Center of the
University of California at Riverside (UCR) and determined that a
Phase I cultural resource study identified no cultural resources.
UCR recommends that if, during construction, cultural resources
are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the
immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluated the finds
and makes recommendations.
Specific Process:
Place a condition on this project that grading will cease if cultural
resources are encountered during grading per UCR's
recommendation.
Mitigation Milestone:
During the grading process.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Public Works Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA~43pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
5
ITEM #7
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0451
(General Plan Amendment)
Prepared By: David Hogan, Senior Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. APPROVE a Negative Declaration for Planning Application
PA99-0451; and,
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0451 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
City of Temecula
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS:
To amend the General Plan Land Use Map to change the Land Use
Designation for a Portion of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan
from Open Space to Highway Toudst Commercial.
Between Rancho Highlands Ddve and Interstate 15 (also identified
as Assessors Parcel Number 944-330-019)
Specific Plan (SP-2)
North: Specific Plan
East: Specific Plan
South: Specific Plan
West: Specific Plan
Open Space
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE: North:
East:
South:
West:
PROJECT AREA
1.4 acres
Highway Tourist Commercial
Vacant
Vacant
Interstate 15
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 ~DeptS~PLANNING~STAFFRPTu,-,51PA99 - pC.doc
1
BACKGROUND
This item was initially presented to the Planning Commission at their August 18, 1999 meeting.
At that time, the Commission continued this General Plan Amendment off calendar to provide staff
an opportunity to gather additional information. The purpose of this amendment is to correct a
mapping discontinuity between the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and the General Plan Land Use
Map. The General Plan Amendment, if approved, would change the designation on 1,4 acres of
property from Open Spaca to Highway Tourist Commercial.
Based upon stars review of the Specific Plan, staff believes that the area in question was intended
to be open space when the Specific Plan was adopted in 1988. Staff believes that the site had
originally been envisioned to contain manufactured landscaped slopes. These slopes were
supposed to provide a transition area between two adjacent Planning Areas. Much of the need for
a transition area was eliminated when the site was graded and used as a borrow site in the eady
1990s.
To further assist the Commission in their deliberations, staff has re-reviewed vadous sections of
the Specific Plan and assembled the following information about this area and the "open space"
areas within the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan.
Section III.A.2.d on page 16: The Open Space/Recreation discussion states that the 1988
amendments to the Specific Plan would reduce the amount of open space/major slopes
within the project from 60.6 to 34.3 acres. The change represented a shift from away from
non-usable slope areas toward more active recreation sites. The odginal Specific Plan had
no park or recreation facilities shown on the plan. The need to amend the Specific Plan had
occurred when the exact location of the Wildomar Fault was identified. Its discovery made
a portion of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan undevelopable.
The key fact here is that major slope areas were considered to be open space within the
Plan. The definition of open space used in the Specific Plan is very different from the
definition commonly in use by the City of Temecula. The City Planning Department does
not consider manufactured slopes to be open space sinca none of the underlying plant and
animal resources remain after the grading and landscaping processes are completed.
Section III.A.7 Open Space and Recreation Plan on pages 26 through 28: The open space
issues are discussed in more detail in Section 7. This section states that the Open Space
and Recreation Plan includes natural open space, two lakes, and recreation centers
(paragraph I on page 26). There is another reference to open space in Paragraph 3 that
talks about the acreage of "open space/major slopes" within the project. Most of the rest
of this section discusses the proposed recreation facilities. Figure 12 shows all the "Natural
Open Space/Manufactured Slope" areas within the project. The area of the proposed
General Plan Land Use Map change is shown on Figure 12 as a Natural Open
Space/Manufactured Slope.
Figure 13: The conceptual Grading Plan for the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan also
provides information about future open space areas within the Plan. Spedfically, the legend
for the conceptual grading exhibit contains a listing for "Natural Open Space". When the
exhibit is examined, no natural open space areas are actually shown on this Plan. Because
natural open space is shown on the legend and not identified on the conceptual grading
exhibit, staff believes that the open space areas in the odginal Spedtic Plan were eliminated
when the Specific Plan was amended in 1988. The original Rancho Highlands Specific Plan
did contain some natural open space areas.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1%Depts~PLANNING~STAFFRPl'V151 PA99 - PC .doc
2
Finally, Figure 6. the Land Use Plan, has been prepared in a "bubble' style and is int~c~
to show only the general development area for each particular Planning Area. As a result,
staff believes that the "open space" area in question, was intended to depict a transition
area between Planning Area 2 (commercial) and Planning Area 6 (high density
residential/commercial). This interpretation is further supported by Riverside County's
approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23624 in 1989. At that time, a single parcel representing
Planning Area 2, was subdivided into three commercial sites. None of the three parcels
contained an identification that an undevelopable open space lot was being created. The
other two lots of Parcel Map 23624 already contain Highway Tourist oriented commercial
uses.
In conclusion, staff believes that the open space areas within the Rancho Highland Specific Plan
were never intended to be open space as we currently understand it. The information in the
Specific Plan, when taken as a whole, indicates that these areas were originally intended to
represent landscaped transitional areas between the different land use planning areas. As a result,
staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed clean-up amendment to
the General Plan. A copy of these vadous pages from the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan are in
Attachment No. 3,
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for this project to determine if the proposed changes
would result in any environmental impacts or any impacts beyond those identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The Initial Study indicated that overall, the
proposed General Plan Amendments would not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated
for the City General Plan. As a result, these potential increases are not considered significant and
staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
FINDINGS
To recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission must make
the following findings:
1. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses.
The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and are
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 4
Exhibit A - Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 7
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 11
Selected pages from the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan - Blue Page 12
Exhibits - Blue Page 13
A. Location Map
B Existing General Plan Map
F:~)epts%PLANNING~STAFFRpT~451PA99 ~ PC.d~c
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
\~TEMEC_FS101\VOL1'~Depts',PLANNING~STAFFRPT~51PA99- PC,doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-__
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 A LOCATION ON
RANCHO HIGHLANDS DRIVE IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 944-330-019 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-
0451 )"
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA99-0451, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0451 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 Libran],
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0451 on
December 8, 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; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0451;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findincls. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of this
General Plan Amendment, make the following findings:
A. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
B. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses.
C,
The amendment 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 Coml~liance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared forthis
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 the proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in impacts
beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. As a result, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council make a determination that the potential impacts of this change
were adequately addressed by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan and
~TEMEC_FS101~VOLI~Depts~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~51PA99 - PC.~C
5
that no further environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0451 (General Plan Amendment) and recommends that the City
Council do the following approve a Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR A
LOCATION ON RANCHO HIGHLANDS DRIVE IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-
330-019 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0451)' substantially in the form that is attached as
Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
Ron Guerriero, 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 8 day of December,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske. Secretary
\\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1%Depts~PLANNING~STAFFRpT~451pA99 - PC,doc
6
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 99-.__
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%DeptS*~PLANNING~STAFFRP'rV151PAg9 - PC.dGc
7
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
FOR A LOCATION ON RANCHO HIGHLANDS DRIVE IDENTIFIED
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-330-019 (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0451)
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA99-0451, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0451 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. PA99-0451 on
December 8, 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, PA99-0451;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application
No, PA99-0451 on December 14, 1999, at which time interested persons had opportunity to, and
did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. PA99-0451;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Repod regarding Planning Application No. PA99-0451;
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. Findin,qs The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0451
(General Plan Amendment) hereby makes the following findings:
A. This amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
B. This amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses.
This amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community end are
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLl~Depts~oLANNING%STAFFRpT~451pA99, pC,G~oc
8
Section 3. Amendments To The General Plan Land Use Mal~ The City Council hereby
amends the General Plan Land Use Map for the parcels identified as APN 944-330-0219; change
the Land Use Designation from Open Space to Highway Tourist Commercial.
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared forthis
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 Amendment will not result in impacts
beyond those odginalty anticipated for the City General Plan. As a result, the City Council
determines that the potential impacts of this change was 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 pads of this Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall cedify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 14th day of December, 1999.
ATTEST:
Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
CityClerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby cedify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 97-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of ,199 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
\\TEMEC_FS101 ~VOL1 ~DeptI%PLANNING~STAFFRP'D451PAg9 - PC .doc
9
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
\~TEMEC_FS101~VOL1~:)eptI~PLANNING~STAFFRPT%451PA99 * PC.doc
10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%Depts~PLANNING~STAFFRP'l~451 PA99 - PC.doc
11
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Planning Application PA99-0451 - Rancho Highlands Drive General
Plan Land Use Map Amendment
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
City of Temecuta
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
David Hogan, Senior Planner
(909) 694-6400
Project Location
West of Rancho Highlands Ddve, immediately east of Interstate 15 in
the City of Temecula.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Open Space
Zoning
Specific Plan (SP-2)
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Amend the General Plan Land Use Map for a portion of the Rancho
Highlands Specific Plan from Open Space to Highway Toudst
Commercial to correct a mapping efor from the eadier adoption of the
General Plan.
The underlying Specific Plan land use and site development
requirements are not being changed by this amendment. Any future
development of the site will comply with the appropriate development
and environmental review requirements.
The site is located in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan in an area
identified for urban scale development The current adjacent land uses
are as follows:
North: Commercial (the Embassy Suites Hotel)
East: Vacant
South: Vacant
West: Interstate 15
None.
F:~DeptI%PLANNING%CEQAVI51PA99 IES,doC
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatonj Findings of Significance
None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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 "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant
unless mitigated' impact 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 attact~ed 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, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eaf,,;er EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that eadier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Pdnted name
For
F:~eptSIPLANNINGXCEQA%451PA99 IES.doc
2
1, Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?(3)
b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (incJuding, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the pugpose of
avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? (1)
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? (2)
Comments:
The proposal is intended to correct a mapping error that occurred dudng the original General Plan process.
The site was inadvertently designated as open space when it was pert of Planning Area No. 2. The Open
Spaca on the General Plan was, in Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, manufactured and landscaped slopes
that ware intended to represent a transition area between future commercial and residential areas. The
Rancho Highlands Specific Plan did not identify any environmental resources that would be protected. The
project will not conflict with the applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by the agencies with
jurisdiction over the project. The project will not divide an established community. The site is located in
a commercial area between Rancho Highlands Ddve and Interstate 15. There is no established community
on or near the site to be divided by this proposal. There are also no habitat conservation or natural
community conservation plans applicable to the site. Therefore, no significant impacts will result from the
proposed project.
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Dispiaca substantial numbers of existing housing,
necassiteting the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (3)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (3)
Irafact
Comments:
The project will not induce new population growth within the area and will not displace existing residential
structures or area residents. The project is the correction of a mapping error for a commercial zone w~in an
approved specific plan. As a result no displacement impacts are associated with this proposal.
F:%Dep~PLANN|NG~CEQA%451 PA99 IES.doc
3
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Wo,uld the project?
ii)
iii)
iv)
b.
c~
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the dsk of loss, injury, or death
involving: (1,2,3)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Pdolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines end Geology Special Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, laterel
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (3)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Cede (1994), creating substantial
dsks to life or property?
Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
The project is a General Plan Land Use Map correction and will not expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects. Any specific development proposals will receive the appropriate environmental
review when the detailed project is ready for consideration. The General Plan identifes significant seismic
h-:'-rds near the project area. The General Plan EIR also identifies numerous mitigation measuras that
will be applied when development occurs. These measures have the ability to reduce the impacts from
various saismic-related h~:'~rds. The project (a General Plan Land Usa Map correction) has no potential
for soil subsidence and slope instability. In addition, no onsita waste disposal is being proposed. As a
result, no significant effects are antidpated as a result of this project
f
be
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially ~ groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net defttit in aquifer volume or a Iowedng of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-exjsting neart>y wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
,/
F:%Depts%PLANNINGICEQA%4S1PA99 IES.doc
4
which permits have bean granted)? (2)
Substantially altar the existing drainage pattem of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or dyer, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (3)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rata or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site? (3)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
(4)
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or rediract flood flows? (4)
Expose people or structures to a significant dsk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam? (4)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (2,4)
Comments:
The proposed amendment will not alter or impact physicel areas where flood hazards have been identrmd
within the Citys boundaries and will not effect water quantity or quality. As a result, no significant impact
have been identified.
a.
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteda established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan? (1,2)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? (2)
F:'OepII%PLANNING~3EQA~451PA99 IES.do¢
5
Comments:
5. The proposed amendment, a mapping error correction to the General Plan Land Use Map, will not alter or
effect air quality. As a rasult,'no significant impacts have been identified.
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capadty of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? (2)
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic pattams, including either ,/
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety dsks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ,/
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ,,/
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g. Conflict with adopted potides, plans, or programs ,/'
supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racket (1)
Co1111Tlents:
Any potential impacts assodated with this project have been addressed through the EIR for the dtywide
General Plan that evaluated the cumulative traffic impacts of all development in the City. In addi6on, the
EIR for the Rancho Highlands Spedtic Plan also discussed the impacts of the entire Spaclf',c Plan area
(including this site). As a result, no significant impacts are antidpated as a result of this project.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
,----=. e..~.~. ~....~ ~
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, potides, or regulations, or by the
Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (2)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any dpadan habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, polides, and regulations or by the
Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (2)
F:~Dopt~PLANNING~CEQA~451PA99 IES.~oc
6
Have · substantial adverse effect of tederally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Wafer
Act (inoluding, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, firing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Intadere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife spedes or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (2,3)
Conflict with any local polldes or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
7
The site has already been graded and disturbed and contains no identifiable biologic resources. Pdor to
the approval of any detailed development proposal, the potential impacts to on site biologic resources will
be evaluated. As a result, no impacts are antidpated as a result of this project.
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
'----j ~,~ j, __ _-.~.fm ~.ex,,v,~ so.,..
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? (1,2)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
minerel resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
The project is a General Plan Land Use Map correction and will not impact mineral resources. In addition,
no minerel resources have been identjfied on the site. As a result, no impacts are antidpated as a result
of this project.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Create a signffimm hn?=rd to ~e public or ~e
envimm~t ~mgh ~e m~ne ~ans~on, use, or
disposal of ha~ffious materials?
Cmta a signffi~m ~ffi to ~e public or ~e
environment ~mugh reasonably foreseeable upset and
a~dent ~ndi~ons involving ~e release of ha~rdous
materials into ~e envimnmen~
F:%Depts%PLANNING%CEQA%451 PA99 IES,doc
7
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
h-?frdous matedaiS, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hn?nrdOus materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 end, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport lend use plan or,
where such a plen has not been adopted, within two
miles or 8 public airport or public use airport. would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (1)
e. NA
f. For a project within the vidnity of a pdvate airstrip, would NA
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?(1)
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant dsk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland rites, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urpenized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
COITlLqlentS:
9.a-d. The proposed amendment, a mapping error correction to the General Plan Land Use Map will not create
a public h-~rd or result in a the discharge of hazardous matedal. The project is not located in a location
that would block or interfere with an emergency response plen. As a result, no significant impacts have
9. e,f The project is not located within the Airport Influence Area of the French Valley Airport, the dosest airport
to the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts are possible.
9.g,h
The site is also not expected to be affected by wildland fires. The site is located in an urban area, and
Interstate 15 is between this site end the dosest wiidland fire area. As a result, no significant impacts have
bean identified.
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
,---- ..d '" __ _-.~-~.. S~ S.,,m
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agendes?
(1,2)
Exposure of parsons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (1,2)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vidnity above levels existing without the
project? (1,2)
F:%Depts%PLANN ING~CEQA%451 PA99 IES.doc
8
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? (1,2)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not ben adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a pdvata airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
NA
NA
Commefite:
10.
The project, a General Plan Land Use Map mapping error will not result in any noise impacts. Any future
development on the site will consider these factors pdor to any approval. The project is not located within
the Airport Influence Area of the French Valley Airport, the dosest airport to the project site. As a result,
no significant 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:
Would the project result in substantial adverse physicel
impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically
altered govemmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services? (1,2)
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public fadlities?
~ Im~t~oraed ~
Comments:
11¸
The project, a General Plan Land Use Map mapping error will not result in any impacts to public services.
Any future development on the site will consider these factors prior to any approval. As a result, no impacts
have been identified.
12. UTIUTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
fadlities, the consmjction of which could cause significant
F:'~DepII~LANNING~CEQA~,451pA99 IES.doc
II~lltdjaliy
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing radiities, the
constmction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or am
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve fie project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the pmvider's existing commitments?
Be served by a landfill with suffident permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
12.
The project, a General Plan Land Use Map mapping error will not result in any impacts to public services.
Any future development on the site will consider these factors pdor to any approval. As a result, no impacts
have been identified.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. . Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. ! Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees. rock outcropping, and histodc building
within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affec~ day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
13.
The project, a General Plan Land Use Map mapping error will not result in any direct aesthetic impacts.
Any future development will r:.cd to comply with fie Development Code and Design Guidelines net require
site landscaping and higher quality architectural design. Any future development on the site will consider
these factors pdor to any approval. As a result, no impacts have been identified.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
i Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
F:%Depa%PLANNING~CEQA',451 PA99 IES.doc
t0
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemetades?
Comments:
14.
The project, a General Plan Land Use Map mapping error will not result in any impacts to cultural
resources. Any future development on the site will consider these factors pdor to any approval. As a
result, no impacts have bean identified.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational fadlities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational fadlities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Comments:
15.
The project, a General Plan Land Use Map mapping error will not result in any impacts to recreational
radiities. Any future development on the site will consider these factors pdor to any approval. As a remit,
no impacts have been identified.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. i 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 of restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major pedods of Catifomia
history or prohistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that 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?
F:~Depte~°LANNING~CEQA~451 PA99 |ES,do~
11
Does the pmjeot have environmental effects which will
cause substantiei adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Comments:
16.
The project, a General Plan Land Use Map mapping error will not effect the environment or other important
statewide resources.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Eadier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiedng, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an eadier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
Ce
Eadier analyses used. Identify eadier analyses and state where they am available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope
of and edequataly analyzed in an eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects ware addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which ware incorporatad or refined from the eadier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
17.
This project, a General Plan Land Use Map mapping error, does not affect the pmvicus analysis undertaken
for the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and the City General Plan. This proposal is consistent with both
documents because the City General Plan was developed to incorpomta the approved Spedtic Plan. In
addition, the City zoning map indicates that the project area is zoned Specific Plan. As a result, the
proposal is consistant with all previous analyses.
2.
3.
4.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and EIR.
FEMA Flood Map: Map No. 060742 0005 B.
F:~Dep~%PLANNING~CEQAVI51PA99 IES.doc
12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
SELECTED PAGES FROM THE RANCHO HIGHLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN
\~TEMEC_FSI 01 \VOL1 ~Depts~PLANNING~STAFFRP'F~451PA99 - PC.doc
12
7. Open Space and Recreation
a. Open Space and Recreation Plen
The Open Space and Recreation Plan for Rancho Highlands
includes natural open space, two lakes, and recreation cen-
ters as shown on Figure 12. Open space continues to provide
buffering from the freeway and Ynez Road. However, internal
common open space has been minimized to a large extent due to
the change in product mixture from higher density clustered
development to mediuan (2-5 du/ac) density single-family
detached dwelling units.
The Amendanent now shows a 7.8 acre community private recrea-
tion park site in the east/central portion of the site (as
noted in Section III.A.2., Land use and Density). That site
will be used for more active participation recreational land
uses than the open space which was provided on the approved
Speci-fic Plan. Some uses which may be provided are a
recreation building, tennis courts, volleyball courts,
swimming pool, children's play area, ball fields, etc. In
addition, private recreation centers will be provided in the
very high density areas (Planning Areas 3, 6, and 7). The
recreation center in Planning Area 6 will be available for
use by the residents of both Planning Areas 4/5 and 6. If a
recreation center is desired in Planning Area 4/5, then the
recreation center in Planning Area 6 will be reduced in size
accordingly.
The County requirements relative to subdivision ordinance
amendment number 460.76 (which implements the provisions of
the Quimby Act), will be satisfied by the proposed
recreational land and activities proposed. This Ordinance
Amendment requires that three (3) acres of property for each
1,000 persons within the community be dedicated to neighbor-
hood and community park and recreational purposes, for
benefit of the residentis. Based on an estimated 2.8 persons
per dwelling unit, population for the project should total
2,293 persons, which would require 6.5 acres of recreational
land to satisfy proposed Ordinance requirements. The
recreation facilities/park site (7.8 acres) more than meets
that requirement. In addition, as noted, private
recreational facilities will be provided in the very high
density residential areas, and there are 32.5 acres of open
space/major slopes.
The equestrian trail in the western portion of the site has
been eliminated. Since the conception of the original Rancho
Highlands Plan, the Rancho California area has been in a
state of land use transition from a predominantly rural to a
more urbanized condition. Additionally, the equestrian trail
did not connect to a major regional system and essentially
ended in the northern reaches of the site. In the approved
26
plan, the trail provided access to the natural open space ad-
jacent to the freeway. Because that open space has been
reduced in favor of usable park and recreation area in the
eastern portion of the site, the trail is no longer needed.
b. Development Standards
1)
The open space and recreation areas shown in Figure 12
shall be developed in accordance with the requirements
and standards of the R-5 zone of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 348, and the Specific Plan on a minimum of
50 acres as follows:
O
A master property owner's association shall be es-
tablished to operate and maintain all open space
areas and recreation facilities.
Vegetative stands shown in Figure 12 shall be pre-
served within open space areas and maintained in a
viable growth condition. Natural springs, ponds,
water courses, and seeps, shall be preserved within
open space areas to the greatest extent possible.
Class I bike lanes, equestrian trails and hiking
trails shall be constructed in accordance with
Figure 12.
O
Equestrian trails crossings shall be constructed
across identified roadways and conveyed to the
Master Homeowner'e Association for maintenance.
Class II bike lanes shall be constructed on all
arterial and collector roadways Ynez Road, Santiago
Road and Rancho California Road, as they border the
Specific Plan site, and on "A" Street and "H"
Street within the Specific Plan.
2)
community recreation center and neighborhood recreation
centers shall be developed in accordance with Exhibit
"D", and shall include the following:
The sites shall be fully landscaped with specimen
trees, shrubs and ground cover.
An automatic irrigation system shall be installed
in a manner compatible with the natural character
of the drainage course.
C
Maintenance of the recreation centers shall be the
responsibility of the master property owner's
association.
27
Z
0 [t
'7
0
~, ~o u,
c. Church Site
The approved Specific Plan shows a 6.0 acre church site
(Planning Area 18) in the southwest portion of the site.
The size and location of Planning Area 18 remains intact with
this Amendment. Depending on future demand, construction
of one or more churches and church-related uses may occur
in this area or in Planning Area 19.
d. Open Space/Recreation
The approved Specific Plan shows 60.6 acres devoted to open
space/manufactured slopes. This Amendment proposes an open
space/major slope category containing 34.3 acres, a reduc-
tion of 26.3 acres from the approved plan. While there has
been an overall reduction in open space, there is a shift
towards more active participation recreation uses from the
generally non-usable open space/slope areas.
The approved Specific Plan provides a 2.3 acre private
recreation site in the west/central portion of the site.
This Amendment proposes a 7.8 acre recreational facili-
ties/park site (Planning Area 10) in the east/central
portion of the site. Some uses which may be provided are a
recreation building, tennis courts, volleyball courts,
swimming pool, children's play area, ball fields, etc.
Please see Design Guidelines, Section IV., for design
details for these facilities.
3. Housino
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment project includes sever-
al housing products. Primary housing neighborhoods will
include equestrian lots (low density), small and move-up
single-family detached development (medium density), and
apartments and condominiums (very high density).
The approved Specific Plan included cluster attached projects
in Planning Areas 13 and 14; and duplex units in Planning
Areas 10 and 12. It has been determined that lower density
dwellings are more appropriate and more marketable in this
area than those previously approved cluster and duplex units.
Therefore, single-family residential units are now depicted
in those areas with the exception of Planning Area 10 which
is now proposed to be developed with a park and recreational
facilities.
16
Z
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%Depts%PLANNING%STAFFRPT%451PA99- PC,doe
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NUMBER: PA99-0451
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8, 1999
LOCATION MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
·
CC
CC
Ht
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
· CASE NUMBER: PA99~)451
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8, 1999
In compliance with the Americans ~ Disabi Iitles Act, if you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, phase contact the
office of the Community Development Department at (90~ 6~,-64~. NotlflcaUon 48 hours prior to a meeting will enabie the City to make
reasonabb arrangemefts to ensue acoesslbllity to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 1999 @ 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Ternecula, CA 92590
Resolution Next In Order #99-049
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Guerriero
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerriero, Mathewson, 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 vourname 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
Approval of Agenda
ACTION: APPROVED 3-1, FAHEY ABSENT
Minutes from November 3, 1999
ACTION: APPROVED 3-1, FAHEY ABSENT
B
Elect a New Co-Chair person
ACTION: ELECTED DAVID MATHEWSON
Public Convenience or Necessity for Proposed Ultramar Gas Station Matthew Fagan
ACTION: DENIED 3-1, FAHEY ABSTAINED
F:\Dep~\pLANNING~WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM\AGENDAS~1999\I2-8-99.do~
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No: Planning Application Nos. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map 29286);
PA 99-0244 (General Plan Amendment), and PA 99-0245 (Zoning
Amendment)
Applicant: Lennar Homes
Location: East of Margadta Road at the northern City limit.
Proposal: 1 ) PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map 29286) is a request to subdivide
9.75 acres into 38 single family residential lots and two open space
lots that comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning
classification (3-6 dwelling units per acre);
2) PA 99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) to remove the subject site
from the Specific Plan oveday designation on Figure 2-5 of the
General Plan and revert back to the underlying Land Use Designation
of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential of the General Plan Land
Use map;
3) PA 99-0245 (Zoning Amendment) to change the existing zoning
map from Specific Plan Oveday (SP) to Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential which is consistent with the undedying General Plan Land
Use designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential.
Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planner: Patty Andere, Assistant Planner
Recommendation: Approval
ACTION: APPROVED 4-0
Case No: Rancho Highlands Drive General Plan Amendment (Planning
Application PA99-0451)
Applicant: City of Temecula
Location: South of Rancho Califomia Road between Rancho Highlands Drive
and interstate 15
Proposal: To approve a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use
Designation within a small portion of the Rancho Highlands Specific
Plan from Open Space to Highway Tourist Commercial.
Environmental Action: Adopt a Negative Declaration
ACTION: DENIED 4-0
Case No.: Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
Applicant: Margadta Canyon, LLC
27740 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590
Location: Located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old
Town Front Street and Highway 79 south ('l'he future Western Bypass
Corridor). Assessors Parcel Number 922-210-047).
Proposal: Planning Application No. PA97-0307 is a proposal to subdivide an
approximately 37-acre parcel in 10 commercial lots and one open
space lot.
Environmental Action: City Staff is recommending that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
be prepared for this project.
Case Planner: John DeGange
Recommendation: Approve
ACTION: CONTINUED TO JANUARY 19, 2000
3-1 GUERRIERO ABSTAINED
F:\D=pts\PLANNING\W1MBERVG\PLANCOMM~AGENDAS\I999\I2-8-99.do~
2
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
December 15, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590
F:\D~pts\PLANNING\V~MBERVG\pLANCOMMXAGENDAS\i999\I2-8-99 .doc
3