HomeMy WebLinkAbout071900 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444, Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
AGENDA
TEMECULA I~LANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
JULY 19, 2000 - 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-027
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Roll Call:
Commissioner Webster
Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a 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 for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 19, 2000.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\PLANCOMM~AgendaS~2000\7-19-00.doc
1
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 ApproVe the minutes of June 7, 2000.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3 General Plan Annual (Implementation) Report - Senior Planner Dave Hoean
4
ERACIT (Enforce Responsible Alcohol Consumption in Temecula) Program Presentation
- Police Officer Robert Alexander
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
Planning Application No. 99-0371 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL REMOVE THE WESTERN PORTION OF VIA RIO
TEMECULA FROM THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP
(PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0371)
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: August 2, 2000, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
F:\Depts\PLANNING\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2000\7-19-00.doc
ITEM #2
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2000
The City of Temecula Planning Cor~mission convened in a regular meeting at 6:05 P.M., on
Wednesday June 7, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Telesio.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissioners *Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
None.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill,
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Chief Building Official Elmo,
Attorney Curley,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Asso<;iate Planner Thomas,
Project Planner Thornsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:07 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
NO comments.
CONSENTCALENDAR
Itwas noted thatthe Consent Calendarltemswere considered separately.
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 7, 2000.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that Agenda Item No. 3 would be heard in conjunction with Agenda
Item No. 10, and that Agenda Item No. 9 would be considered after Agenda Item No. 4.
R:PlanCommWlinutes~060700
1
MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to approve the agenda, as revised. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Fahey who was absent.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of March 15, 2000;
2.2 Approve the minutes of April 19, 2000.
It was noted that Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:07 P.M.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve item No. 2.1. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Item No. 2.2. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner
Fahey who abstained.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3
Findina of Public Convenience or Necessity for Cox/VVest Properties at the Meadowview
Golf Course located south of Nicolas Road, north of Del Rev Road, east of MarGarita
Road and west of Calle Medusa, within the Meadowview communitv. Planning ManaGer
Debbie Ubnoske/Associate Planner Carpie Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Review and make the appropriate finding.
This Item was heard out of order in order to be considered in conjunction with Item No.
t0; see page '13.
For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the applicant for Agenda Item No.
10 had requested a continuance due to the results of an independent EIR that had been
conducted; and advised that if the community desired to express their comments at tonighrs
meeting, while the matter would be continued, the Commission would hear public comments
when Agenda Item No. 10 was considered.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Application No. PA99-0317 (Development Plan) -Temecula RidGe Apartments
located on south side of Rancho California Road between MoraGa and Humber. Planning
Manaqer Debbie Ubnoske/Associate Planner Carpie Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Continue to July 5, 2000.
R:PlanComm~linutes\060700 ·
2
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue this Item to July 5, 2000. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 9.
Plannincl Application No. PA00-0039 (Development Plan) located at 42545 Rio Nedo west
of Cal Emoleado. Proiect Planner Thomas ThornsleV
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0039, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 32,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
FOR INDUSTRIAL AND/OR WAREHOUSING USES, ON A 1.89
ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 42545 RIO NEDO, ALSO KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO'S 909-290-041 AND 042;
9.2
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0039 (Development
Plan). This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA Section 15332
(In-fill Development Projects).
Via overheads, Project Planner Thornsley provided an overview of the staff report (of record),
highlighting the location, access, parking, landscaping, and architecture (inclusive of the
recessed and glass articulation); for Commissioner Webster, noted that there was not a
condition included in the Conditions of Approval that would require the applicant to submit a
parking synopsis after a tenant was identified, relaying additional information regarding the
existing parking provisions; and for Commissioner Telesio. provided additional information
regarding the color of the sandblasting and the paint application.
Mr. Vincent Dyer, architect representing the applicant, relayed that the color of the building
would be similar to the City Hall building; and for Commissioner Webster, noted that the
applicant would not be opposed to submitting a parking synopsis Prior to Occupancy.
The Commission relayed closinq remarks, as follows:
Commissioner Telesio noted that if the color of the building would be similar to the City Hall
building he had no additional concerns.
Commissioner Webster recommended adding a condition requiring a parking synopsis Prior to
Occupancy; and relayed that as buildings are developed further up the hill, it was his
recommendation that the color palette be darker primarily to blend with the existing natural
colors and to lessen the aesthetic impacts of large industrial buildings.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that he was pleased with the architectural style; and relayed
concurrence with Commissioner Webster's recommendation to require the applicant to file a
parking synopsis when a tenant was identified.
R:PlanCommVdinutes\060700
3
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staffs
recommendation with the additional condition that the applicant be required to submit a parking
synopsis Prior to Occupancy. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
5
Planning Application No. PA99-0124 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan) -
Chdst the Vine Lutheran Church located on the south side of North General Kearnv Road
approximately 320 feet east of the MarQarita Road/North General Kearnv Road
intersection. Associate Planner Denice Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-0t9
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0124, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 15,288 SQUARE FOOT LUTHERAN CHURCH ON
3.07 VACANT ACRES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
APPROXIMATELY 320 FEET EAST OF THE MARGARITA
ROAD/NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD INTERSECTION
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-009-075
Commissioner Fahey advised that she would be abstaining from this matter.
Associate Planner Thomas provided an overview of the project (per agenda material); relayed
the proposed building dimensions, and location; noted the architecture, relaying staffs concern
regarding the size of the cross and the bell tower which contributed to the 52-foot building
height; and with respect to landscaping, relayed that the applicant has proposed a thirty-five and
a half percent (38.5%) landscaping plan, which far exceeds the required fifteen percent (15%).
With respect to the parking requirements, for Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner
Thomas provided additional specification.
For Commissioner Webster, with respect to CEQA issues, Associate Planner Thomas relayed
that there would be inclusion of a condition that the applicant comply with the Mitigation
Monitoring Program; with respect to the height issue, noted that the cross had been treated as
part of the architectural elements of the building; and confirmed that if the Commission
approved the project, as proposed, there would need to be approval for a Minor Exception due
to the height matter.
Pastor Curtis Lyon, the applicant, for Commissioner Webster, relayed that although there were
two alternate Lutheran churches in the area, there was a wide variety of differences among
Lutherans; and noted that if it was the Commission's desire, the applicant would not be opposed
reducing the size of the cross.
R:PlanComm~/tinutes%D60700
4
Commissioner Telesio relayed that in his opinion the additional two feet in height on the cross
was worthy of approval of a Minor Exception.
For Commissioner Mathewson. Mr. Lyon noted that the total number of members at this time
was approximately 150, providing additional information regarding anticipated growth, relaying
that it was customary to hold two services as attendance grew; and confirmed that there could
potentially be a fellowship time in between two services at a future point in time, noting that the
parking would be sufficient to accommodate the attendance.
Mr. Knox Johnson, 29681 Avenida del Sol, queried why the applicant would not be required to
pay for street improvements when alternate churches in alternate areas were being required to
do so.
Ms. Helen Hubka, 29830 Puesta del Sol, noted her concern with traffic impacting the
Meadowview area; and queried whether there were traffic studies conducted with respect to this
project.
In response to Mr. Johnson's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that
North General Kearny in this area was improved to the Circulation Element standard, relaying
that Community Southwest Development had installed those improvements at the time the
property was sold to the School District; and clarified that this property was purchased by the
church with the cost of those improvements included in the price of the property.
The Commission relayed the followinq conclusions:
Commissioner Mathewson, initially, relayed his concern with the inadequacy of the parking
provisions.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that the entire 6,000
square feet would not be assembly space. Associate Planner Thomas noted that the area was
inclusive of offices, classrooms, and alternate uses, relaying that the calculations were denoted
in the staff report, and confirmed that the parking provisions exceed the required standards,
noting that additional services would be staggered; advised that off-site parking would be
utilized if at a future point the service attendance outgrew the site; and noted that staff would
further review the parking provisions when the applicant presented a proposal for Phase II of
development.
Having had his concerns regarding the parking provisions allayed, Commissioner Mathewson
relayed his support of the project.
Commissioner Webster advised that in his experience, if the service times were staggered
that there would not be any negative parking or loading impacts.
For Commissioner Webster, Associate Planner Thomas relayed that the property proximate to
this site would be for development of an alternate church, relaying that since that padicular
applicant expressed a desire for shared access at a late point in time, it was the Public Works
staffs opinion that the applicant for the Lutheran Church should not be required to re-design the
site; and relayed that the proximate property would have solely one access point proximate to
the park.
R:PlanCornmV, ainutes~060700
5
In response to Ms. Hubka's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that
there were traffic studies conducted with respect to the entire Specific Plan, noting that this
particular use meets those demands.
In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the queuing length of the driveway
and the proximity to the parking spaces, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the
queuing had been reviewed by staff.
With respect to the Minor Exception for the two-foot height variation, Commissioner Webster
recommended that the request be granted.
For Commissioner Telesio, with respect to Condition No. 14a (regarding public improvements),
referencing page 18 of the Conditions of Approval, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
relayed that there were no proposed streets improvements necessary other than those denoted,
noting that the street width was adequate for this land use and for this specific area.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Thomas relayed that street parking
was prohibited on North General Kearny Road.
Commissioner Telesio relayed his support of the project, noting that the plan was well laid out
with the surrounding area.
Chairman Guerriero relayed his support of the project.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve the
project with the addition of a condition requiring compliance to the Mitigation Monitoring
Program from the previous EIR, and granting a Minor Exception for the height variance. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Fahey who abstained.
It was noted that at 6:58 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:10 P.M.
6
Plannina Application No. PA99-0510 (Development Plan) -AVOCA Enterprises, LLC
located at 42486 Avenida AIvarado. Associate Planner Denice Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-06t0, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 23,710 SQUARE FOOT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON t.22 VACANT ACRES LOCATED
AT 42486 AVENIDA ALVARADO AND KNOW AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 909-290-058;
6.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption of Planning Application No. PA99-0510 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
R:PlanComm'.~Ainutes\060700
6
Associate Planner Thomas presented the staff report (of record); relayed that staff recently
received data from Chief. Building Official Elmo regarding an area (a furred space) on the floor
plan that was not calculated into the overell square footage of the building, noting that the
applicant had relayed that there was no intent to occupy this area; relayed that since the
additional space would increase the total square footage, there would be parking impacts and a
need for a request for a greater FAR increase,
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this matter to the July 5, 2000
Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.)
Commissioner Webster requested the applicant to provide improved colored elevations at the
continued hearing.
Mr, Timothy Fuller, representing the applicant, relayed a desire to expedite the continuance.
noting that the "furred space" was not intended for use.
Chief Building Official Elmo provided additional information regarding the "furred space, "noting
that this area was brought to the applicant's attention during the Design Review process;
clarified that the second floor construction plan, as proposed, exceeds the criteria that would
classify this area as a mezzanine, per the Building Code.
In light of the parking impacts associated with the additional space, Planning Manager Ubnoske
relayed concern.
Mr. Fuller relayed that the applicant also owned four acres adjacent to this property, noting that
at a future point in time there could be access to this adjacent site for parking.
At this time voice vote was taken re. flect ng unanimous approval.
R:PlanComm'dVlinutes~060700
7
7
Plannincl Application No. PA00-0125 (Development Plan) -Oriclinal Roadhouse Grill
located on the east side of. Ynez Road south of Winchester Road and north of the north
mall entrance. Project Planner Thomas ThomsleV
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0125 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,134 SQUARE FOOT
RESTAURANT (ORIGINAL ROADHOUSE GRILL), ON A 1.04
ACRE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD
AND NORTH OF THE NORTH ENTRANCE TO THE
PROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-320-036, AND
LOT "M" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495 AND
PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007;
7.2
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PAO0-0125 (Development
Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations.
Via colored renderings, Project Planner Thornsley presented the project proposal (via agenda
material); and highlighted the proposed location, architecture (inclusive of enhanced
articulation). parking provisions, landscaping, and signage.
The applicant's representative was available for questions from the Commission.
The Commission noted concluding remarks. as follows:
Commission Telesio relayed that he supported the project, applauding the design variation in
comparison to the mall design.
Commissioner Webster relayed that the project design was fine; with respect to Condition
Nos. 4. and 5 (regarding compliance with the Mitigation Measures contained in the Regional
Center Specific Plan), advised that these conditions had not been satisfied by the original
projects, or subsequent projects, clarifying that he would take a stand with respect to this project
and future projects at the mall site, as well as at the Power Center site, noting that until those
specific conditions were satisfied no further development should be approved within the
Regional Center Specific Plan; advised that in light of the City Council taking a strong stand
regarding traffic impacts, and since the traffic measures required for this area have not been
satisfied, he strongly urged the Commission not to approve this project.
For Chairman Guerdero, with respect to the Park and Ride facility, Attorney Curley noted that
there were ambiguities in the language of the Specific Plan with respect to the timing and other
issues as to the layout of the parking lot; advised that it would be difficult with certainty to link
R:PlanComm~lvlinutes~060700
8
this parcel to the Park and Ride facility; noted that if it was the Commission's desire, the
underlying environmental document could be re-visited, and the issue could be brought before
the Commission; and relayed that this was not the last project site until the mall was built out.
Planning Manager Ubnoske requested additional time for staff to review the Specific Plan,
acknowledging that while this issue had been continually raised, it was her understanding that
staff and the attorney have reviewed the Specific Plan, noting that the verbiage was vague with
respect to the reference to a Park and Ride facility; noted a desire to bring additional information
to the Commission at a future meeting; relayed that it would not be her desire to hold up this
project based on an issue that was related to the entire mall site; for Commissioner Webster.
advised that if the language specified the requirement clearly then it would be accomplished and
there would be a meeting with Forest Hills to resolve this issue; and reiterated that it was her
understanding from staff discussions, that there was ambiguity in the Specific Plan.
Commissioner Webster relayed that since these specific guidelines were developed by the
City, if there was ambiguity, the City should be fully aware of the matter; noted that for months
he had consistently brought this issue to the attention of staff; and advised that he was drawing
the line on this project. as well as, for future projects in this area.
Chairman Guerriero recommended bringing this matter (the Regional Center's Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures) before the Commission at a future time, concurring with Commissioner
Webster's ConceFns.
For Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that there would be an
opportunity to deal with the developer directly with respect to implementing the measures
associated with the Specific Plan; and noted that there was also an need to determine whether
the language specifically dictated these specific requirements (i.e., Park and Ride facility).
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staffs'
recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio. (Ultimately this motion
passed; see below.)
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he shared Commissioner Webster's concerns
regarding addressing the issues of discussion, clarifying that it would be his desire for staff to
address this matter prior to bringing forward further development proposals related to this
Specific Plan.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner
Webster who voted n__o.
R:PlanCommWlinutes\060700
9
8 Plannincl Application No. PA98-0309 (Development Plan) - Temecula Creek Inn
Expansion located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road. Project Planner Thomas Thornslev
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-021
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA98-0309 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL ROOM ADDITION AND A
MINOR EXCEPTION TO THE PARKING STANDARDS, ON A
PORTION OF THE TEMECULA CREEK INN SITE LOCATED AT
4450'1 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 922-220-003, 004, 007, & 008;
8.2
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0309 (Development
Plan). This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA Section 15332
(In-fill Development Projects).
Project Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (per agenda material); relayed the
proposed plan to add 48 additional hotel rooms and a new meeting room; relayed a brief history
of the project; highlighted the access provisions, and the site design; noted that the design of
the proposed addition would be consistent with the existing buildings, while relaying that the
new hotel suite would be three stories; provided an overview of the architectural elements,
building materials, and enhanced articulation; with respect to parking provisions, noted the
applicanrs' request for a Minor Exception for a ten percent (10%) parking reduction, providing
additional information regarding the mixed uses; with respect to the landscape plan, noted the
applicant's efforts to preserve numerous mature trees on site; with respect to Condition No. 7,
(regarding the guest room roofs) noted that the material should be modified to reflect concrete
tiles; with respect to Condition No. 33 (regarding street improvements), relayed that the revised
condition should be worded, as follows: The Developershal/provide on Rainbow Canyon Road
a southbound f50-foot right-tum lane and a northbound 150-foot left turn at the Golf Club
entrance. The improvements shaft consist of asphalt paving, strfping, and signage designed to
meet Public Works standards; noted that the referenced letter from East Municipal Water
District in the staff report was inadvertently left out of the agenda packets, and provided per
supplemental material, relaying a summary of the information included in the letter; and
provided additional information regarding the project being exempt from further evaluation under
CEQA, noting that the actual area of the site altered for the proposed project would be
approximately 1.5-1.75 acres.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Thornsley provided additional information
regarding the calculations related to the parking ratios, and the mixed uses of this particular
facility.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's concerns regarding adequate parking provisions,
Commissioner Telesio noted that there existed a five percent (5%) leeway in the request for a
Minor Exception reduction since the request was for a ten percent (10%) reduction, and the
Development Code allows for a fifteen (15%) reduction. In response, Project Planner Thornsley
P,:PlanComm~inffies\060700
10
relayed that if the meeting room was calculated into the ratios, the request for a Minor Exception
would not be adequate.
For informational purposes, Project Planner :'l'hornsley clarified that additional parking provisions
would encroach upon the area where the existing live Oak trees were located.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, thanked staff and Project Planner Thornsiey for
their diligent efforts with respect to this project; relayed concurrence with the modification to
Condition No. 7 (regarding the concrete tile roofing material); with respect to Conditions Nos.
32, and 33, noted the applicant's' submission of a letter to staff addressing these issues; for
Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that there would be no restrictions with respect to the
public's use of the meeting room, noting that typically the meeting room would be utilized by
hotel guests; provided additional information regarding the fluctuation of the utilization of the
uses; relayed that the parking provisions were maximized without impacting the mature
landscaped areas or the tennis courts; noted that additional parking could be added at the
extreme east or south end of the complex, but would not be easily accessible to the meeting
room area; relayed that for special events, accommodations would be provided to handle these
rare occasions, noting that most of the events were not held at this facility due to inadequate
large meeting areas; and clarified that this proposal would eliminate the temporary structures
located on this property.
In light of the concerns regarding adequate parking, Commissioner Webster's recommended
the addition of a condition requiring valet parking for special events. In response. Mr. Markham
relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to the additional condition.
The Commission relayed concludinq remarks, as follows:
Commissioner Fahey relayed that based on her experience in visiting this site that the parking
provisions were adequate; expressed concurrence with the added condition, requiring valet
parking for special events; and noted her support of the project,
Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern with respect to the parking calculations,
specifically, as it relates to policy standards; noted that the meeting room would most likely be
utilized on weekends by local residents; relayed that he would support the request for a Minor
Exception for a reduction in parking provisions, requesting Attorney Curley to address whether
an alternate applicant for an alternate proposed use could oppose required parking provisions
due to this project's proposal.
Attorney Curley advised that a project-by-project analysis would not set a precedent for
demands by alternate applicants for the same Conditions of Approval; acknowledged that there
did need to be clarification with respect to this matter, inclusive of manners to address these
issues (i.e., a parking management plan); and relayed that the recommended additional
condition requiring valet parking would accomplish this goal.
Chairman Guerriero relayed his support of the project.
With respect to the revised wording of Conditions No. 33 (regarding street provisions), for
Commissioner Telesio, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that staff would
investigate safety lighting at the intersection.
R:PlanCommWlinutes~060700
11
Commissioner Telesio noted that any negative parking impacts would only affect the applicant
due to the distance betw.een alternate uses; and relayed his support of the project;
Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to provisions for safety lighting, and
to either a valet parking requirement or a parking management plan for special events.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staffs
recommendation with the following added conditions:
Add-
. A condition requiring a parking management plan (to include but not be limited to
valet parking) to be submitted to address peak use.
· A condition to address safety lighting at the intersection.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
It was noted that at 8:28 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:35 P.M.
9 Plannine Application No. PA00-O039 (Development Plan) located at 42545 Rio Nedo
west of Cal EmOleado. Project Planner Thomas Thornslev
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0039, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 32,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
FOR INDUSTRIAL AND/OR WAREHOUSING USES, ON A 1.89
ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 42545 RIO NEDO, ALSO KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO'S 909-290-041 AND 042;
9.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0039 (Development
Plan). This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA Section 15332 (In-fill
Development Projects).
This Agenda Item was heard out of order; see page 3.
R:PtanComm'dViinutes~)60700
12
10
Planninc~ Application No. PA99-0292 (Conditional Use Permit) - Meadowview Golf Course
west of Calle Medusa, within the Meadowview community, Associate Planner Carole
Donahoe
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
10.2
Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0292
(Conditional Use Per.mit);
Adopt the Mitigated Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA99-0292
(Conditional Use Permit);
10.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0292 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF
COURSE WITH A 7.097 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE, A CART
BARN MAINTENANCE AND OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS,
DRIVING RANGE AND AN EQUESTRIAN TRAIL PARK AND
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0292 (CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF THE
MEADOWVIEW GOLF COURSE ON 297 ACRES LOCATED
SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD, NORTH OF DEL REY ROAD,
EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND WEST OF CALLE
MEDUSA, WITHIN THE MEADOWVIEW COMMUNITY, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 919-340-023 AND
921-090-041
Commissioner Fahey advised that she would be abstaining with regard to this issue.
For the record, Commissioner Webster advised that through his employment with Rancho
California Water Distdct (RCWD) he had worked with the applicant's developer to Quick Claim
an easement that RCWD had within this property, requesting confirmation from the attorney that
there was no conflict of interest issue.
Attorney Curley advised that there was no conflict of interest issue with past events; and for
Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the fact that he would be an heir to property in the
Meadowview area would not be a conflict of interest matter.
Associate Planner Associate Planner Donahoe provided a brief overview of the proposed
project (of record), specifying the supplemental agenda material which was inclusive of the
responses of the community with respect to this project, the letter from the Meadowview
Community Association Board of Directors, and the response letter from Deputy City Manager
Thornhill; advised that staff had received a letter at 3:15 P.M. today from the Department of
Fish&Game, noting that although the issues could most likely be addressed, that due to the late
hour of receipt of the data, there was no opportunity to address the issues; and relayed that the
applicant had requested a continuance in order to address the issues in the environmental data.
R:PlanCommWlinutes~060700
13
At this time Chairman Guerriero opened the public hearing.
The following individuals were opposed to the golf course project, as proposed:
n Ms. Maria Hetzner
n Ms. Suzanne Ellis
[] Mr. Robed Kaufman
[] Mr. Richard Thompson
[] Ms. Madene Vanik
[] Ms. Patricia Witt
[] Ms. Janet Combs
[] George Buhler
n Ms. Patrice Lynes
[] Mr. Ed L, Thompson
[] Mr. James Stoops
n Ms Dawn Schmid
n Ms Sandy Gesswein
Ms. JoElien Byrnes
n Ms. Joan Stoops
n Mr. Vance Tschanz
40657 Carmelita
41850 Calle Cerezo
30455 Del Rey Road
29657 Via Node
30351 San Pasqual Road
40702 La Colima
29991 Via Node
40265 Paseo Sereno
30700 San Pasqual Road
40325 Paseo Sereno
30195 Via Norte
30021 Los Nogales Road
40840 Via Los Altos
30035 Via Node
30195 Via Norte
30797 San Pasqual Road
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons:
Noted the opposition to the serving of alcohol in close proximity to a school,
specifically due to the potential negative impact on children's safety since the streets
in this area are narrow with no sidewalks or streetlights.
Relayed concern with respect to the environmental impacts associated with this
project.
Recommended that Mayor Stone's six issues expressed last week be addressed
prior to approval of this project.
Noted the dramatic negative impact on a specific residence, with respect to the
placement of the clubhouse parking lot and the cart barn.
Relayed concern with the additional generation of traffic, and access issues.
Opposed to the proposed scarcity of planned trees or shrubs.
Noted that devaluation of any resident was in direct opposition to the CC&R's.
Queried the development of the project after the original vQte of the Members of the
Association was had been a no vote.
Referenced the environmental data in the staff repod, noting the potential negative
impact effects. and challenged the results.
Recommended that a full Environmental Impact Report be conducted and submitted
to the Planning Commission for review.
R:PlanCommWlinutes~060700
14
Challenged the Association's voting process, noting the taking of a second vote with
respect to this issue.
Relayed concern with liability issues with respect to potential injuries on the trails.
Expressed concern regarding the generation of noise, and light, which contributed to
the lack of a peaceful setting.
Referenced the Meadowview tract advertising material, noting the assurance of open
space areas.
Relayed a preference for the existing large pristine open space area.
In response to Ms. Hetzner's queries, Attorney Curley relayed that it would be most effective to
finish collecting signatures for the petition of those opposed to the serving of alcohol at this use,
and to submit one final completed petition at the time of the continued hearing.
For Ms. Ellis, Associate Planner Donahoe specified the property that encompassed the golf
course project, relayed that she would provide additional information after investigation.
For Ms. Kaufman, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the Environmental Study would be
available in copy form for residents who came to the Planning Department and requested the
data,
The following individuals were proponents of the proposed to the golf course project, as
proposed:
n Mr. John Hoagland
n Mr. Arthur Olmore
n Ms. Pat Birdsall
n Ms. Cheryl Beal
n Mr. Bob Lopshire
n Mr. Rayne Fairchild
Ms. Nancy S. Checkitts
40481 Calle Fiesta
31121 Avenue Buena Suerte
41540 Avenida Barca
30010 Del Rey
40244 Atmore Court
29690 Avenida Del Sol
30780 Del Rey Road
The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following reasons:
Noted the histodc negotiations and plans to develop a future golf course.
Relayed that it was within the Meadowview Community Association's land-use rights
to develop the golf course project.
Noted that in 1971 the CC&R's referenced the golf course project.
With respect to the serving of alcohol, advised that from a Law Enforcement
standpoint, golf courses did not provide a negative impact, providing information
regarding neighborin9 golf courses.
R:PlanCommVv~inutes%060700
15
Noted that the property currently was dirt and not a preferable choice over the
development of a golf course.
Advised that the project would be an asset to the community,
./ Relayed that if the golf course were extremely challenging, the amount of alcohol
consumed would be reduced.
Recommended adding ar~ additional entry access into the Meadowview area via
North General Kearny Road, and that the City revisit the issue of opening Sanderling
Way in order to improve circulation.
Noted that the golf course would provide a beautiful open space area.
Relayed that with the golf course there would still be wildlife on site, and that the
development would reduce the fire hazards.
Opposed the manner in which opposing data was distributed without the
identification of names, or with postage (i.e., illegally placed in mailboxes), submitting
copies of the distributed material for the record.
Mr. Louie Vega, 30065 Del Rey, noted that he was neither for, nor against the project, noting his
concern with respect to the Association's voting process.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to continue this
matter off calendar. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who abstained.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Mathewson queried staff for input regarding the Commission's Code of
Conduct relating to ex parte communications.
In response, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that this was acceptable practice and
even encouraged, noting that if the issue was a matter of concern with the full
Commission, that perhaps the issue should be brought forward to the City Council for
input.
Chairman Guerriero provided information received from numerous workshops
(including the APA), noting that there was no conflict as long as the meetings were
noted on the record.
Attorney Curley relayed that a Commission had the jurisdiction to self-regulate, noting
the tradition to allow contact as long as it was disclosed; and advised that if the
Commission had a desire to evaluate a structure which would preclude or limit the
external contact, staff could provide additional information.
Commissioner Mathewson clarified that his concern was with respect to the
consistency of information presented to the Commissioners individually, relaying that a
Code of Conduct developed could resolve these issues; and urged the Commission to
consider pursuing this matter.
R:PlanComm',Minutes\060700
16
C=
D=
H=
Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that when there was a full Commission again, the
issue could be readdressed in order to gain additional input; and relayed that the
matter would be agendized for a future meeting.
Commissioner Webster relayed a desire to review the Water Conservation Ordinance
in the Development Code, acknowledging that staff was currently overloaded from a
work schedule standpoint, noting that he could provide proposed revisions to staff for
their review.
W~th respect to the Growth Management Policy recently adopted by the City Council,
Commissioner Webster relayed his disappointment that the Planning Commission was
not provided the opportunity to provide input with respect to the formation of the policy;
noted that the new policy appeared to be in conflict with the Growth Management
Element in the General Plan; and queried whether there was going to be a revised
General Plan.
In response, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that the General Plan was going
to be updated in the near future.
Commissioner Telesio relayed his discomfort with ex parte meetings, concurring with
Commissioner Mathewson's comments; and relayed that he would not oppose
restrictions with respect to this matter, noting that until there was resolve of this issue
he would not participate in ex*parte communications.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that since the General Plan would be updated at a future
time, it was his opinion that the issue of cumulative impacts should be addressed at
that time.
With respect to provision of material and color boards for proposed projects, Chairman
Guerriero requested that this material be provided for the Commission for each project.
Chairman Guerriero relayed his discomfort with staff providing important data as
supplemental agenda material at the time of the meeting, noting that the Commission
has no opportunity to review the material.
In response, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that at times data was provided to staff
by the applicant after the agenda packets had gone out, querying the Commission's
desire with respect to this issue.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that in his opinion, if an applicant did not provide ample
review time for the Commission, then the project should be continued; and with
respect to staff's data being provided at the time of the hearing. recommended that all
material be provided to the Commission so that it could be reviewed prior to the
meeting, specifically referencing the letter from the Water District submitted at tonight's
meeting which was lengthy and not provided until the hearing.
With respect to the lack of landscaping around the Promenade Homes tract, Chairman
Guerriero recommended that staff address this issue.
R:PlanCommVvlinutes\060700
17
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the newly hired senior planner would be
introduced at the next Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:53 P.M. Chairman Guerriero ~ormally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, June 21,
2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske. Planning Manager
R:PtanComm~inutes~060700
18
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Members of the Planning Commission
Pebble Ubnoske, Planning Director
July 19, 2000
General Plan Annual (Implementation) Report
Prepared by:
David Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Review and comment on the draft Annual Report.
BACKGROUND
Section 65400 of the State Planning and Zoning Law requires that the Planning Commission
investigate and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the implementation of the
General Plan and the progress at meeting the regional housing needs assessment. The purpose
of this staff report is to provide a draft of the Annual Report to the Commission for their review and
comment. Following the Commission's review, staff will make the changes and present the final
Annual Report to the City Council, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and the
Department of Housing and Community Development.
The review should focus on the status of implementing the various measures and should provide
additional guidance to the Council in areas where additional emphasis is needed. The Annual
Report, with the Planning Commission's comments, will be presented to the City Council for their
approval. In addition to meeting the requirements of State Law, Staff also envisions that the Annual
Report will be a valuable tool for the proposed update of the General Plan.
ANALYSIS
The attached Annual Report evaluates the status of each of the implementation measures identified
in the General Plan by Element. The Report provides the following information for each item:
· A description of the specific Implementation Action;
· The progress at accomplishing the item; and
· Additional information on the item's completion or ongoing status.
The draft Annual Report is included in Attachment No. 1.
Attachments:
1. Draft Annual Report - Blue Page 2
F:\Depts\PLANNING\GENPLAN\Annual Report 2000 PC.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. I
DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT
F:\Dcpts~PLANNING\GENpLAN~0,nnual R~port 2000 PC.doc
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
July 19, 2000
Prepared By:
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
City of Temecula
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
BACKGROUND
Section 65400(b)(1) mandates that all cities and counties prepare and submit a report to their
legislative bodies documenting their progress at implementing the General Plan. The purpose of
this requirement is to keep the implementation of the General Plan in the forefront of local
decision making. The City of Temecula adopted its first General Plan on November 9, 1993.
The Plan consists of 10 Elements. The Elements are as follows:
Land Use
Circulation
Housing
Open Space/Conservation
Growth Management/Public Facilities
Public Safety
Noise
Air Quality
Community Design
Economic Development
FORMAT
The Report is organized on an Element by Element to match the structure of the General Plan.
Each Element table outlines the various Implementation Measures that were contained in the
General Plan. The progress for each implementation measure is indicated. The four options are
as follows:
Completed
Means that the Implementation Measure called for an action that has been
completed.
Ongoing
Means that the Implementation Measure calls for continuing actions that
are being done to meet its requirements.
In Progress Means that the accomplishment of the Implementation Measure is
underway at this time and has not been completed.
No Action Means that the Implementation Measure has not been started or
completed.
In addition, many of the Implementation Measures also have comments that provide additional
information on past and current activities.
ELEMENT TABLES
The following Tables identify the progress the City has made at implementing it General Plan.
Please note however, that General Plans are long range documents that require many years to
totally implement. Because Plan implementation is a long term effort, not all the measures in the
Plan have been completed as of the date of this Report.
F:XDeptsxPLANN1NGXGEN LANWINAL GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION LIST - Page l.doc
ITEM #4
ERACIT PROGRAM PRESENTATION
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 19, 2000
Planning Application No. 99-0371 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Prepared By: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMOVE THE
WESTERN PORTION OF VIA RIO TEMECULA FROM THE GENERAL
PLAN CIRCULATION MAP (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0371)
BACKGROUND
This General Plan Amendment (GPA) odginates from a request by the Old Vail Partners and
LandGrant Development for the Temecula Creek Village to remove the General Plan madway that
was intended to cross their property. The application for a General Plan Amendment was submitted
to the City on September 15, 1999.
ANALYSIS
Dudng the development of the General Plan in the eady 1990's, Via Rio Temecula was added to
the Circulation Element Map between Jedediah Smith and Butterfield State Roads. The purpose
of Via Rio Temecula was to provide a parallel roadway to State Route 79 South to create an
alternate route in an area of anticipated traffic congestion. The proposed roadway was added to
the Circulation Element Map during the public headng process. As a result, the odginal General
Plan traffic study did not contain Via Rio Temecula.
Subsequent analysis by the applicant indicates that this section of the road would carry less that
1,000 vehicle tdps on an average day. The City Public Works Department has reviewed the study
and concurs with the results. The results of the applicant's traffic study (Exhibits J and K) show
future traffic volumes both with and without this segment of Via Rio Temecula. Copies of Exhibits
J and K are located in Attachment No. 3.
In addition, an analysis of intersection delays at build-out indicate that there will not be a significant
impact to Highway 79 South with this segment of Via Rio Temecula removed. The results of this
analysis are shown in the following table.
F:~:~tS\PLANNING\G P A~PA99-0371~STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
Intersection of
SR-79 South
With Via Rio Temecula
A.M. Intersection
Delay (seconds)
26.7
LOS
D
P.M. Intersection
Delay (seconds)
21.5
LOS
C
Without Via Rio Temecula 26.6
Change -0.1
D C
22.7
+1.2
The range for average delays at LOS "D" for signalized intersections is 25.01 to 40.00 seconds.
The reduction in the average delay at the intersection with Jedediah Smith Road appears to result
from a decrease in the amount of cross traffic resulting from the elimination of Via Rio Temecula.
Based upon these results, Staff has determined that the removal of Via Rio Temecula from the
General Plan would not have an adverse impact on traffic circulation or the environment.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY
Staff has reviewed the General Plan to assess the amendments potential consistency. Only one
goal statement appears to be applicable in this situation. Circulation Element Goal 1 states that
the City will strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections. According to the
preceding analysis, future traffic service levels at the impacted intersections would meet this goal.
As a result, staff has determined that that the removal of this segment of Via Rio Temecula would
be consistent with and continue to further the purposes of the adopted City General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the impacts of this project in conjunction with the proposal for Planned
Development Overlay No. 4. As a result of this review, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for this General Plan
Amendment.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City
Council approve the Negative Declaration and the General Plan Amendment removing Via Rio
Temecula west of Avenida de Missions and reconnecting it to Highway 79 via Avenida de Missions
(Planning Application 99-0371 ).
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 3
Initial Study - Blue Page 6
Traffic Study Results - Blue Page 7
Exhibits - Blue Page 8
A. Current Circulation Element Map
B. Proposed Circulation Element Map
F:\Depts\PLANNING\G P A\PA99-0371\STAFFRPT.PC.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
F:~Depts',.PLANNING\G P A~PA99-0371~STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMOVE THE
WESTERN PORTION OF VIA RIO TEMECULA FROM THE GENERAL
PLAN CIRCULATION MAP (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0371)
WHEREAS, LandGrant Development filed Planning Application No. PA99-0371 (the
"Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, the Application 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 the Application on July 19, 2000, at a duly
noticed public headrig 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 headrig and alter due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to conditions after
finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan;
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. _The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
Application, makes the following findings:
A. The proposed amendment to the Circulation Element Map would not adversely
impact areawide traffic circulation;
B. The proposed amendment to the Circulation Element Map would not be contrary to
the goals and policies contained in the adopted Circulation Element of the General Plan; and,
C. The proposed amendment to the Circulation Element Map would not be inconsistent
with the other Elements of the adopted General Plan.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that the proposed project would not create any significant impacts on the environment and a
Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. Recommendation. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council approve the Application to amend the adopted Circulation
Element Map by removing Via Rio Temecula west of Avenida de Missions from the Plan.
F:'~Depts',PLANNING~G P A~A99-0371~STAFFRPT,PC.doc
4
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19t~ day of July, 2000.
Ron Guerdero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the __ day of
,2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:~Depts~PLANNING\G P A~PA99-O371~STAFFRPT.PC.doC
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
F:~D epts%PLANNING%G P A%PA99-O371~STAFFRPT, PC.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
Descdption of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Planning Applications No. PA99-0261 & PA99-0371
Planned Development Overlay Area No. 4 (PDO-4) and General
Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dan Rockholt, Senior Planner
(909) 694-6400
Generally located on the south side of State Highway 79 east of
Avertida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road.
Chds Smith
Old Vail Partners/Land Grant Development
12625 High Bluff Ddve
Sta. 212
San Diego, CA 92130-2054
"PO" Professional Office, Z3 Specific Plan Oveday Zone
"PO" Professional Office
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately
33 acres from Professional Office (PO) to the Planned Development
Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. This action will adopt the concept for
a vision to rovitatize the area for mixed-use development known as
"Temecuia Creek Village." Additionally. the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element
removing a portion of a proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula,
from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from
the Circulation Plan.
The property is surrounded by open space to the south, existing
professional offices to the north, low-medium residential uses to the
east, and highway commercial uses to the west.
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Supplemental Information
None
This Initial Environmental Study is being completed to evaluate the
proposed change of zone from Professional Office to Planned
Development Oveday. The mixed land uses proposed within the
zone change application have impacts to the area to a lesser degree
than those already in place. No detailed information on the future
development of this site is available at this time. All future
development projects will receive appropriately detailed
environmental review when specific details are available.
~TEMEC_FSI01~VOLI ~)eptS~LANNING~PDO~99-0261 79 SOUth~INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geology and Soils
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
(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 propared.
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 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 eadier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that eartier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Dan Rockholt. Senior Planner
Printed name and Title
\\TEMEC_FSt01\VOLl~Depts'~LANNING~PDO~9-0261 79 South\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-26f .doc
2
Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
"' Physically divide an established community?
!Conflict with applicable land use plan. policy, or'
regulation of an agency with iurisdiction 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 mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Lm The1
Commen~:
1 .all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) zone. Additionally, the proposed plan will require an
amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed extension of Via
Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the Circulation Plan.
This action will adopt a concept for a vision to revitalize the area with a mixed*use development known
as "Temecula Creek Village."
This proposal will not divide any established communities. Furlher, the environmental impacts
associated with Land Use and Planning are consistent with the impacts considered within the proposed
PDO, as well as the adopted City General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Additionally, a traffic
study was performed by a Registered Traffic Engineer, which indicates that the removal of the
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Through existing adopted policies and development guidelines, future development will be subjected to
City review as well as additional environmental oversight. VVhen specific projects are proposed, land
use considerations will be reviewed at that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified
and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
I
sst~s ~td._Sup~mg I.rdg~...J~o, Smfme~ ....
s lnduce substantial population grov,4h 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?
Commerlt$:
\\TEMEC_FS101%VOLI%DeptstPLANNING%PDOt99-0261 79 South~INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
3
2. a
2, b,c
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
Circulation Plan. This action considers the adoption of the PDO which includes up to 400 multiple-
family dwelling units to be considered in future development. Any construction of future dwelling units
will be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, as a result, this action will have less than significant impacts
to the environment, therefore mitigation measures are not necessary.
This action will not displace any 'number of existing housing units, therefore will not displace any
persons from their dwellings. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional
mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Implad [ncoq:oral~rl Imp~':l ImL~ct_= .
,/
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-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 and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ,/
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ,/
iv) Landslides? ,/
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ,/'
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unsfabie, 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
dsks to life or property?.
Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?.
Comments:
3.all The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan. The project is located within the Alquist Pdoilo Special Study Zone for the
Fault Zone. The General Plan indicates that this area is within Ground Shaking Zone II. Due to
seismic nature of the area, future development could potentially incur moderate to severe g~
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~)epts~PLANNING~PDOLqg-0261 79 South\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
4
shaking, resulting in potential dsks to public safety and property damage. To minimize the effects of
seismic activities, all development is required to adhere to construction standards outlined in the City's
Fire and Building Codes. It is important to note that seismic phenomena is not unique to this project, but
rather affects the entire southern Califomia region.
Proposed grading for the project would not produce any additional geologic hazards nor create any
unique geologic features beyond those normal during construction activities. All grading activities will
require plan check review and subsequent inspections to ensure compliance to applicable
laws/requirements. When specific projects are proposed, seismic and safety issues will be addressed at
that time. As a result, either less than significant or no additional impacts have been identified and no
additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
d,
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
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 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 plannod 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 dver. 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 map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or rediract flood flows?
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?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami. or mudflow?
Mxmtlx~aled
\\TEMEC_FSI01%VOL1~Depts~PLANNING~PDO~g-0261 79 SouthMNITIAL STUDY PA-gg-261 .doc
5
4.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a propo
with the impacts considered within the approved General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report.
In addition, standard erosion protection measures will be required as part of the approval of future
grading plan. When specific projects are proposed, hydrologic factors will be reviewed at that time. As
a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are
necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
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:
i I
J Po4efd;ally
s~g~a,m i
Ii~ze= and $upp~l_~g Informatmn So~rce~ ......... Impa~t
Conflict wi~ or obstmd implementation of the appli~ble
air quali~ plan?
Violate any air quality standard or ~ntdbute substantially
to an existing or pmje~ed air qualiW violation?
Result in a cumula~vely ~nsidemble net increase of any
cdteda pollumnt for which the proje~ ragion is non-
a~inment under an appii~ble federal or mare ambient
air qualiW standard (including releasing emissions whi~
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone pm~rsom?
Epose sensitive m~ptors to substantial ~ilumnt
con~ntmtions?
Create objedionable ~ors affe~ing a substantial number
of people?
Comments:
5.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan. All air quality impacts caused by future development stem from mobile source
emissions. Regionally, future development will have minimal air quality impacts because the scope of
development has likely been anticipated in the regional air quality plan. Discharge of temporary
construction vehicle activity will only be temporary in nature, and less than significant given the duration
of the project. Local and regional climate patterns will not be changed due to the relatively small size of
the project. Due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed project, minimal odor and emissions are
anticipated. Burning wastes are not permitted for this project. -Further, the minor change to the
Circulation Element will also have minimal impacts to air discharges. When spedtic projects are
proposed, air quality factors will be reviewed at that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been
identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1~:)epts~LANNING',PDOL99-Q261 79 South%INITIAL STUDY PA-g9-261.doc
6
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Cause an ~ncrease in traffic which is substantial ~n
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 tdps, the volume to capacity
ratio on reads, 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 pattams, 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 dangereus intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or pregrams
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts,
bicycle racks?
Comments:
6.all The preposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres frem Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning Distdct and to remove a portion of the
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avertida De Missions to Jedediah Smith Road frem the
Circulation Element Map. The applicant has submitted traffic studies for each preposal. The traffic
study for the General Plan Amendment evaluated the changes in area traffic volumes with and without
the extension of Via Rio Temecula. According to the Study, this segment of Via Rio Temecula is
expected to carry appreximately 700 vehicle trips dudng an average day. If this read segment is
removed from the General Plan, the traffic would be rereuted onto Avenida de Missions and SR-79
South. The additional 700 average daily trips on Avenida de Missions and SR-79 South would not
change the anticipated Levels of Service for these read segments; which would remain as LOS "D' or
better. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated frem this General Plan Amendment.
The detailed traffic study for the Planned Development Oveday studied potential impacts that may
result frem future development stemming from this action. This study has been reviewed by Staff,
which included a review by the Public Works Department. Staff has concluded that the proposed
change to the Circulation Element is consistent with the goals of the approved General Plan and
Environmental Impact Report. This conclusion is a result of the-comparison of proposed land use
changes to existing permitted land uses. Although the proposed preject will result in a net increase of
daily vehicle tdps over the current vacant land, it would not be an increase over the type of land uses
already permitted for the preperty under current zoning requirements. When specific projects are
preposed, further circulation impacts will be reviewed at that time, and any required mitigation
measures will be imposed at that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no
additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1.2, 3, 4 and 5)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1 ~Depts~PLANNING%PDOL~J-0261 79 South\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261
7
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
st~,c~ i kl~lf.n j s~gnrr, ee~No
a. 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
VVildlife Service?
b. 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 Wddlife
Service?
c. 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 ramoval, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. interfere substantially with the movement of any native ,f
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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ,/
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat ,/
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Cornmerits:
7.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Offica
(PO) to the Planned Development Oreday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan.
The site for the proposed zone change does not lie within any area identified as supporting identified
endangered species. Biological impacts due to the any future development's proximity to Temecula
Creek may occur. However, because this action does not review actual in-the-ground development.
Through existing adopted polides and development guidelines, future development will be subjected to
City review as well as additional environmental oversight. When specific projects am proposed, land
use considerations affecting biological resources will be reviewed at that time. Additionally, any
proposed development will require appropriate biological studies, which in turn may result in the
modification of the project. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional
mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2, and 3)
X\TEMEC_FS101XVOL1~DeptsxPLANNINGNPDOX99-0261 79 SOUthXINITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
8
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
· ~'~-_
IResuit in the loss of availabihty 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?
Comments:
8.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan. The future development does not incorporate within its design any use of non-
renewable materials, nor cause the removal or loss of mineral resources from the area, since none
have been identified. When specific projects are proposed, further mineral resource impacts will be
reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time. As a result, no additional
impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Sources: 1, 2. and
3)
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
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 aiFport 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?
. sr~g..a~. .
%%TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%Depts%PLANNING~PDO~9-0261 79 South\lNIT~L STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
9
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
~ and Suplx~ td4arndion Seurc~s . J
For a project within the vicinity of a pdvate 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 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?
S~nd~nl
· .l~,.pud
Comments:
9.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional Office
(PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed plan will
require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a proposed
extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith Road from the
Circulation Plan.
Given that the proposed development is mixed-use in nature, no increase to explosion hazards, toxic
chemical release, or increased safety hazards is anticipated. Emergency response plans and those
sections of the Temecula General Plan, which address public safety take into consideration the area at
built-out conditions. Fire hazards are increased slightly due to the nature of construction, however
n
levels.
When specific projects are proposed, further impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous materials
will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time. As a result, no
additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary
(Sources: 1.2, and 3)
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. ' ~posure of people to severe noise levels in ex~ss of
standa~s established in ~e Io~I general plan or noise
ordinan~, or appli~ble standards of other agencies?
b. Eposum of ~rsons to or generation of excessive l
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial pe~anent in~ease in ambiem noise levels l
in the proje~ viciniW above levels existing ~out ~e
proje~
d. A substantial temporoW or ped~ic in~ease in ambient
noise levels in the pmje~ vidnity above levels existing
~thout ~e projec~
~TEMEC_FSIO1%VOLI~em~NNING~DO~0261 79 So~h~INITIAL STUDY PA-9~261 .d~
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a pubtic airpod 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 vidnity of a pdvate airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
10.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. Increases in noise levels will be minimal, given that the proposed
development is mixed-use in nature. No land uses are anticipated that would cause severe increases
in ambient noise levels. Some shod*term construction noise will occur during future proposed grading
activities. When specific projects am proposed, further impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous
materials will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time.
Additionally, future development will require appropriate noise studies, which in turn may require noise
mitigation measures at that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no
additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
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 adver-~ ~hysicai
impacts associates with the provision or need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant envirenmentai 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? ,/
Commen~:
11.all The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. No increases to existing governmental, public facilities or services
shall result from this action. It can be anticipated that impacts to public facilities and services will
~\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1 ~Depts~PLANNING~PDOL~9-0261 79 SOUth~INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
11
occur. However, it is anticipated that the resulting impacts would be minimal and comparable to
developments already permitted under existing ordinances and guidelines. When specific projects
are proposed, impacts to public services and facilities will be reviewed, and any required
measures will be imposed at that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified
additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
I~el and SupIx~ingJ~F~malion Soufcse ::~: :': :!:~
a. ~ceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
appli~ble Regional Water Quali~ Control Board?
b. Require or result in ~e ~nst~ion of new water or
waste~ter treatment facilities or expansion of existing
fadli~es, ~e ~ns~ion of ~i~ ~uld ~use signifi~nt
environmental effe~s?
c. Require or result in ~e ~nstm~ion of new sto~ water
drainage fadlities or e~ansion of exis~ng facilities, the
~ns~ction of ~i~ ~uld ~use signifi~nt
environmental effe~s?
d. Have s~dent water supplies available to sere the
proje~ from exis~ng en~ements and msour~s, or are
new or e~anded enticements needed?
e. Result in a dete~ination by ~e wa~e~ter ~eatment
pmvider ~i~ sexes or may seNe the proje~ ~at it has
adequate ~pad~ to seNe the proje~'s pmje~ed
demand in addition to ~e providers existing
commitment?
f. Be seNed by a landfill ~th suffident periled ~paci~ to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, s~te, and Io~1 s~tes and
regulations related to solid ~ste?
Co~men~:
12.all
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally. the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. Increases to demands for public utilities are anticipated, given that
future development will be mixed-use in nature. Mixed-use developments typically have demands to
services such as electricel utilities, telecommunicetions infrastructures. sewer and water distribution.
etc. However, these levels are not anticipated to cause severe demands that would hamper other
land uses in the area. Local utility infrastructures are constructed-and are being improved to handle
increased demands caused by local development. When specific projects are proposed, impacts to
utilities and service systems will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at
that time. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation
measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
\\TEME. C_FS101\VOL1 ~)epts%PLANNING~PDO~99-0261.79 South~lNITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
12
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
No I
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?.
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?
Commen~:
13.all The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. When specific projects are proposed, impacts to public services and
facilities will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time.
Additionally, the City has adopted design guidelines within the development process, which requires
development to meet certain design and aesthetic standards. As a result, no additional impacts have
been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the s:gnificense of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ,/
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ,,/
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred ,,/
outside of forehal cemeteries?
Commen~:
14.all The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District, Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avertida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. The General Plan EIR diagram of Areas of Sensitivity for
Archaeological Resources (Figure 5-6) does identify the property as a potential sensitive
~%TEMEC_FSI01\VOL1~Depts~PLANNING~PDO~99-0261 79 South~INITIAL STUDY PA-99o261 .doc 13
archaeological site, although the text of the General Plan EIR recognizes that the survey leading the
identification of sensitive sites may not accurately portray all cultural resources in the study area.
However, much of this site has been previously disturbed. This disturbance further reduces
likelihood of finding any cultural resources. Further, no budal locations have been identified on
however more detailed analysis may be necessary to determine potential impacts.
Measures are identified below. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
Mitigation Measure
14.all
Because the area of the proposed project has been identified as one with potential sensitive
archeological resources, any future developments within the area will require detailed study and
analysis. All new development will comply with AB 3180 ("Mitigation Monitoring Program") and
report to the City on the completion of mitigation and resource protection measures required for
each project.
Further, future development will be required to comply with the provisions outlined in the
Califomia Environmental Quality Guidelines in regards to the preservation or salvage of
significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
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?
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?
Signill;a14 IvMiilat:o;1 ! S4gni/'l~m~
b~F _ If~.,Dataled ; Iml~cl . I
Comments:
15.alh
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan wilt require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Plan. VVhen specific projects are proposed, impacts to utilities and service
systems will be reviewed, and any required mitigation measures will be imposed at that time. These
may include, but are not limited to impact fees, incorporation of recreation elements within the
development, etc. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation
measures are necessary. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1%Depts~PLANNING%PDOLqg-0261 79 South\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
' ' 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
restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major pedods 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 CurTent
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?
P~ent~aily Si~nirscant Unlef, I. ! Leei ~ran
Impecl In~rpmaled .Imr, acl
Comments:
16.a
The proposed project is an action to rezone an area of approximately 33 acres from Professional
Office (PO) to the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) Zoning District. Additionally, the proposed
plan will require an amendment to the General Plan Ciroulation Element removing a portion of a
proposed extension of Via Rio Temecula, from Avenida De Missions and west of Jedediah Smith
Road from the Circulation Ran. The PDO is intended to prepare for future development that is
consistent with the approved General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report. As a result, no
additional impacts have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. (Souroe:
1, 2 and 3)
16.b:
The Cumulative impacts from the project are considered less than significant because the site is
proposed to be developed in a manner consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. All
cumulative impacts from the land use and development scheme envisioned in the General Plans have
been analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the project's consistency with
these doCuments, cumulative impacts must be considered as less than significant. As a result, no
additional impacts have been identified. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
16.c: No environmental impacts have been identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, directly or indirectly. (Source: 1, 2 and 3)
17. 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. [ Eadier analyses used. Identify eadier analyses and state where they are available for review.
\\TEMEC_FSIOI\VOL1 ~)eptSM=LANNING%PDO~99-0261 79 South\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-261 .doc
15
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis.
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Comments:
17.a:
The City of Temecula General Pla,n Environmental Impact Report, copies of which are available at the
City of Temecula Planning Department. Additionally, the Temecula Creek Traffic Impact Analysis,
February 2000, copies of which are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department
17.b: Cumulative impacts from all of the issues discussed above were addressed and mitigated to one
degree or another in the General Plan, Specific Plan and respective EIR's.
17.c:
Mitigation measures associated with the present project and analysis have been previously described
and the measures will be implemented as part of the grading permit approval, issuance, or monitoring
processes.
SOURCES
2.
3.
4.
5.
City of Temecula General Plan
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Temecula Development Cede
Temecula Creek Traffic Impact Analysis, February 2000
Via Rio Temecula Road General Plan Link Deletion Study, September, 1999
\\TEMEC_FSI01WOL1'.Depts~PLANNING',PDOLqg-0261 79 South\INITIAL STUDY PA-99-26"l.doc
16
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
TRAFFIC STUDY EXHIBITS
F:~Depts%PLANNING\G P A%PA99-0371%STAFFRPT.PC.dOC
7
EXHIBIT
BUILD-OUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AD'r) -, WITH VIA RIO TEMECU~,~ RD.
63.1
LEGEND|
14.7 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'8)
!i
'/~J4ECULA ~CE, Teatecu~, CIIIf~nle
EXHIBIT K
BUILD-OUT AVERAGE DALLY TRAFFIC ADT)
WITHOUT VIA RIO TEMECUL~ RD.
LEGEND:
15.4 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'$)
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
F:~Depts~LANNING%G P A~PA99-0371~,STAFFRPT.PC.doc
-: · .
8
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT - A CURRENT GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP
EXHIBIT - B
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION 99-037t
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JULY 19, 2000
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI~Depts%PLANNING%G P A~DA99-0371%STAFFRPT.PC.doc
9